Date   

Re: Jim-Bob 6-pack article

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

Message-----
From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article



Bob thanks . I decided to keep the plans steering cable construction
because I have a preference to keep the tailwheel connected directly to the
pedals as operation of the tailwheel is then direct in contact with the
pilot and no possibility of slack under any circumstances. We fitted an
improved tailspring designed by John Tenhave as my original broken kit
tailspring was very poorly made of solid glass and looked like 50% resin.
The new tailspring is tubular glass with excess resin removed under pressure
and we believe is very unlikely to break.


" I guess separate cables could be run to the rudder from the pedals if
this was a concern. "


Peter,
If you did that, you could at least incorporate the tailwheel steering
springs. I think they are worthwhile.

Bob F
N200QK

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Farnam
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Peter,

Probably the belcrank approach might maintain the tailwheel cable
tension
better, but only marginally so. It has slightly better geometry when the
tailspring flexes. I doubt that it would make much difference in the
real
world. Kittleson's old airplane is now owned by Geoff Rutledge who
shares my
hangar. It seems to work every bit as well as mine. In the plans
version,
the cables are tensioned first by the pedal return springs, and extra
tension comes from the pilot.

Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Bob in relation to the two different cable mods , which method will
best
maintain tailwheel cable tension during the ground run when the tail
spring
is flexing ? In the plans version the tension is taken up by the pilot
at
the pedals.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Farnam
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article




Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: raynergang [mailto:rayners@...]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:11 AM
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Bob, I have just received today (the Atlantic is big) the Q-Talk
and I
just want to say thanks for the article. It's good to see all the
information on these useful (necessary) modifications in one place
with
enough detail to get to work. I'm pleased to say I have built most
of
them
mods into my Q - except the toe brakes (kept the hand operation,
based
on
advice from an experienced friend) and the bellcrank for the
rudder/tail
wheel cables.

I have a question about the bellcrank: you say that Al Kittleson's
approach is equally good and it's the way I was expecting to do the
job.
Is
there any advantage to the bellcrank method, because otherwise it
seems
to
be more complicated (so less reliable?) for no reason? Another
simpler
way
could also be to use two cables from the link on each side - with
the
suitable turn-buckles and springs as necessary.

Chris,

The advantages to the belcrank method over Kittleson's approach is
that it
was easy to make it strong. It is also convenient to adjust the
rudder
pedal/rudder/tailwheel ratios easily. It is not as easy to modify
the
lower
rudder bearing to take the 600 or so pounds of load that I wanted it
to
take. The US Air Force physiology handbook says that 150 lbs of load
is
reasonable to generate with your foot. The rudder pedals multiply
that
by 2x
each giving a total of 600 pounds load easily possible. If you can
make
it
safe for that load, Kittleson's method is simpler and is what is
used by
most certified taildraggers.

The problem with the two cables originating at the link without
the
belcrank is that the loads still end up at the rudder bearing,
because
the
tailwheel springs will stretch, thereby transferring the load to the
rudder.
Better to use either Kittleson's approach, or the belcrank approach.

Re hand brakes v. toe brakes, I chose toe brakes because that is
what
I
was used to plus I wanted both hands free for throttle, stick and
reflexer.
I understand that in Europe, hand brakes are much more widespread
than
in
the US. Both clearly work, so use whatever you are comfortable with.
The
important thing is to get the differential braking which is such an
important part of control of any taildragger.

Bob F.
N200QK



I already used a beefed-up lower rudder bearing (I saw a Q with a
broken
original one) and so it is now the same 3/4" phenolic as the
elevator
centre
mounts. Is that beefed up enough do you know?

Thanks for the info.

Chris Rayner (Q-200; painting and decorating it)

PS - to Doug, welcome to the hot seat. You've got your work cut
out
to
better the Richardson team (so thanks to them also), but I'm
certainly
looking forward to good things. Get printing those decals - I expect
to
claim one!





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






--------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----
--

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.







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





----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----
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.







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





------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--
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.







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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
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.







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






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

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: Jim-Bob 6-pack article

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Bob thanks . I decided to keep the plans steering cable construction because I have a preference to keep the tailwheel connected directly to the pedals as operation of the tailwheel is then direct in contact with the pilot and no possibility of slack under any circumstances. We fitted an improved tailspring designed by John Tenhave as my original broken kit tailspring was very poorly made of solid glass and looked like 50% resin. The new tailspring is tubular glass with excess resin removed under pressure and we believe is very unlikely to break.
I guess separate cables could be run to the rudder from the pedals if this was a concern.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Farnam
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Peter,

Probably the belcrank approach might maintain the tailwheel cable tension
better, but only marginally so. It has slightly better geometry when the
tailspring flexes. I doubt that it would make much difference in the real
world. Kittleson's old airplane is now owned by Geoff Rutledge who shares my
hangar. It seems to work every bit as well as mine. In the plans version,
the cables are tensioned first by the pedal return springs, and extra
tension comes from the pilot.

Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Bob in relation to the two different cable mods , which method will best
maintain tailwheel cable tension during the ground run when the tail spring
is flexing ? In the plans version the tension is taken up by the pilot at
the pedals.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Farnam
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article




Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: raynergang [mailto:rayners@...]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:11 AM
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Bob, I have just received today (the Atlantic is big) the Q-Talk and I
just want to say thanks for the article. It's good to see all the
information on these useful (necessary) modifications in one place with
enough detail to get to work. I'm pleased to say I have built most of
them
mods into my Q - except the toe brakes (kept the hand operation, based
on
advice from an experienced friend) and the bellcrank for the rudder/tail
wheel cables.

I have a question about the bellcrank: you say that Al Kittleson's
approach is equally good and it's the way I was expecting to do the job.
Is
there any advantage to the bellcrank method, because otherwise it seems
to
be more complicated (so less reliable?) for no reason? Another simpler
way
could also be to use two cables from the link on each side - with the
suitable turn-buckles and springs as necessary.

Chris,

The advantages to the belcrank method over Kittleson's approach is
that it
was easy to make it strong. It is also convenient to adjust the rudder
pedal/rudder/tailwheel ratios easily. It is not as easy to modify the
lower
rudder bearing to take the 600 or so pounds of load that I wanted it to
take. The US Air Force physiology handbook says that 150 lbs of load is
reasonable to generate with your foot. The rudder pedals multiply that
by 2x
each giving a total of 600 pounds load easily possible. If you can make
it
safe for that load, Kittleson's method is simpler and is what is used by
most certified taildraggers.

The problem with the two cables originating at the link without the
belcrank is that the loads still end up at the rudder bearing, because
the
tailwheel springs will stretch, thereby transferring the load to the
rudder.
Better to use either Kittleson's approach, or the belcrank approach.

Re hand brakes v. toe brakes, I chose toe brakes because that is what
I
was used to plus I wanted both hands free for throttle, stick and
reflexer.
I understand that in Europe, hand brakes are much more widespread than
in
the US. Both clearly work, so use whatever you are comfortable with. The
important thing is to get the differential braking which is such an
important part of control of any taildragger.

Bob F.
N200QK



I already used a beefed-up lower rudder bearing (I saw a Q with a
broken
original one) and so it is now the same 3/4" phenolic as the elevator
centre
mounts. Is that beefed up enough do you know?

Thanks for the info.

Chris Rayner (Q-200; painting and decorating it)

PS - to Doug, welcome to the hot seat. You've got your work cut out
to
better the Richardson team (so thanks to them also), but I'm certainly
looking forward to good things. Get printing those decals - I expect to
claim one!





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






------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--

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.







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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
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.







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





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.







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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tsunami Effect

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>
 

Yep, that ranks up there with "Look what I can do, look what I can do!"
Grow up.
Larry Hamm

Tim wrote:

A friend who' a CAF Hornet driver presently on exchange in Australia,
just sent this jpeg up from Down under> look closely
My webspace>
http://www3.telus.net/public/tlc2/projectpage
321Tim
Cold Lake


Re: Powered glider registration

David J. Gall
 

That formula is:

W/b^2<=0.62 lb/ft^2

Translated, it's "weight divided by span squared is less than or equal to
0.62 pounds per square foot." This is not a regulatory formula, and is not
the only criteria needed to be met to qualify as a powered glider.

Don't get your hopes up too high.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: High Flyer [mailto:excflyer@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:14 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Powered glider registration


The formula W/b2 =.62 is for regular gliders not experimental
home built. The space shot by Rutan was registered as an
experimental homebuilt glider.
Excflyer
Harpswell, ME


Re: Tsunami Effect

rbarbour27@...
 

Grow up Larry. This weeks international news magazines have pictures just as
foreboding as these. We don't live in a sanitized world. These pictures
show the world that the tsunami is a lot more than just damaged infrastructure.
Suck it up!

Dick Barbour
Rogers. AR


Re: Tsunami Effect

damiantwinsport@...
 

I am with you Jon. I was looking for pics of a plane in there some place..
Dman,N8427


Re: Tsunami Effect

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

I don't see any relevance to Quickies. Fair warning about the grotesque nature of this photo certainly would have been appropriate and appreciated.

Jon

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Tim <tlc2@...>
Reply-To: Q-LIST@...
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:13:09 -0700


<html><body>



<tt>
A friend who' a CAF Hornet driver presently on exchange in Australia,<BR>
just sent this jpeg up from Down under> look closely<BR>
<BR>
My webspace><BR>


Tsunami Effect

Tim <tlc2@...>
 

A friend who' a CAF Hornet driver presently on exchange in Australia,
just sent this jpeg up from Down under> look closely

My webspace>

http://www3.telus.net/public/tlc2/projectpage

321Tim
Cold Lake


Re: VG placement concern

Keith L WeL Welsh <welshq1@...>
 

Actually Burt was here before I had the VG's installed. We were talking
about
the fact that QAC had maintained that the canards finished to the
criteria were fine only
those not adhereing to that criteria needed the VG's. Rutan said that is
where he
and QAC departed ways.
He didn't suggest I fly with the tape installed but to determine the
canard effectiveness
at lift off speeds by high speed taxiing. That way one can find out real
easy just what
the effectiveness of the VG's really is in a simulated rain situation.
My first take off with them on was an eye opener as the canard flew much
differently.
It felt like it leaped off campared to before. A flight or two later a
popcorn tstm was skirted
and the rest is history. That was my rain test. And I had a witness as
Crouch was there too.
Never got to the tape part. 94K is painted with Imron so really I should
test the tape thing
before really discussing this much further. Don't want to fall into the
trap of knowing to much
without knowing enough.

Will pick this up again later.
Welsh



On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:29:37 -0800 (PST) "Brian Neiman, Sr."
<brian_neiman@...> writes:


Damn !
I'd be certain to have the VG's in place b4 tempting fate.

Keith L WeL Welsh <welshq1@...> wrote:
Hi Jerry:

Gotta apreciate your honesty. Had to have been a scarry thing
knowing
the ground was comin up fast. I know them wangs can take quite a
thumpin
and perhaps yours would've too. Who knows.
I've had excellent results with my setup and don't worry to much
anymore
about how thick the clouds are.

When I departed enroute to Sullivan last summer I noticed the stick
was a
little
heavier than normal at lift off. The climb executed normally though,
then
realized I
was in a very light rain also I was flying quite heavy. Then about
as
fast the rain was done
and the stick pressure returned to normal. Then bucked that 15k
headwind
all the way there.
Hard to say if I would have had similar troubles in a heavy rain.
Would
say the odds are
against me without knowing for sure.

When Burt Rutan was here in 95 he suggested I place duct tape half
way
along the
the leading edge starting inboard. That would simulate flying in
rain. He
cautioned about going
all the way across as it could be to much. Will give a test when the
wx
warms a bit.
You got my curiousity up now.

Thanks for getin back.
Welsh

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:29:48 -0800 "Jerry Jerome"
<jjflyboy@...>
writes:

Hi Keith, yes I applied my VGs as you describe, every other pair.
Not sure
how the quickie would land in that situation, low power, rain, but
my Q-2 at
least made it back to the runway, albeit not intact. It should
also
be
mentioned that I had foam damage in the center section of my GU
due
to a
leak in my main tank which I had fixed after noticing "signs".
This
became
evident after I cut it out of the fuse after the accident. I know
I
tap
tested it but I'm not sure if I did the center section - the
fairing
at the
bottom covers up the area that was most affected by the leak. I
believe
this had weakened the structure but it is purly hypothetical at
this
point
if the canard would have remained intact after that hard landing
in
rain.


Regards,

Jerry Jerome

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith L WeL Welsh [mailto:welshq1@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:00 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] VG placement concern




Didn't save the message but remember reading of a Q2 under partial
power
in
rain experiencing sufficient loss of lift to endanger the flight.
This
person said to
have also applied 1/2 the number of VG's.

I might want to mention there is more than one way of appling half
the
number.
Did he remove every other one for example. Did he install just the
inboard or outboard
half. Or are his and mine the same.

The spacing I used is one in which I skipped every other pair
thereby
keeping the
authority of the VG's intact. Skipping every other one might be
asking a
little much of
them acting individually if that is what was done in this
instance.

My spacing looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; /
&#92;
/
&#92; not this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
OEM looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;

At no time have I experienced the low speed situation described
and
could
haver real
easy when in the pattern at Mattoon that time. But then again I
fly
a
Q-1.

Just some food for thought
Welsh





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


Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/SyTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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


Yahoo! Groups Links









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





---------------------------------
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@...

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



Brian A. Neiman, Sr
715-212-7024
http://www.BrianNeiman.com
"Leadership is influence, plain and simple" - Maxwell

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt














------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research
Hospital's
'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6iY7fA/5WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/SyTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


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


Yahoo! Groups Links








Re: Tsunami Effect

MartinErni@...
 

I'll second that!!!!!!!! INAPPROPRIATE
Earnest


Re: VG placement concern

Mike Raim
 

Before I would place duct tape on any painted surface, I would certainly
test its adhesive effect on a nonobtrusive area. I have seen the
adhesive do damage time and time again to diffterent polymer paints,
especially when exposed to sunlight. (As well as the GU airflow
contamination as mentioned below.)

M. Raim

Brian Neiman, Sr. wrote:

Damn !
I'd be certain to have the VG's in place b4 tempting fate.

Keith L WeL Welsh <welshq1@...> wrote:
Hi Jerry:

Gotta apreciate your honesty. Had to have been a scarry thing knowing
the ground was comin up fast. I know them wangs can take quite a thumpin
and perhaps yours would've too. Who knows.
I've had excellent results with my setup and don't worry to much anymore
about how thick the clouds are.

When I departed enroute to Sullivan last summer I noticed the stick was a
little
heavier than normal at lift off. The climb executed normally though, then
realized I
was in a very light rain also I was flying quite heavy. Then about as
fast the rain was done
and the stick pressure returned to normal. Then bucked that 15k headwind
all the way there.
Hard to say if I would have had similar troubles in a heavy rain. Would
say the odds are
against me without knowing for sure.

When Burt Rutan was here in 95 he suggested I place duct tape half way
along the
the leading edge starting inboard. That would simulate flying in rain. He
cautioned about going
all the way across as it could be to much. Will give a test when the wx
warms a bit.
You got my curiousity up now.

Thanks for getin back.
Welsh

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:29:48 -0800 "Jerry Jerome" <jjflyboy@...>
writes:


Hi Keith, yes I applied my VGs as you describe, every other pair.
Not sure
how the quickie would land in that situation, low power, rain, but
my Q-2 at
least made it back to the runway, albeit not intact. It should also
be
mentioned that I had foam damage in the center section of my GU due
to a
leak in my main tank which I had fixed after noticing "signs". This
became
evident after I cut it out of the fuse after the accident. I know I
tap
tested it but I'm not sure if I did the center section - the fairing
at the
bottom covers up the area that was most affected by the leak. I
believe
this had weakened the structure but it is purly hypothetical at this
point
if the canard would have remained intact after that hard landing in
rain.


Regards,

Jerry Jerome

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith L WeL Welsh [mailto:welshq1@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:00 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] VG placement concern




Didn't save the message but remember reading of a Q2 under partial
power
in
rain experiencing sufficient loss of lift to endanger the flight.
This
person said to
have also applied 1/2 the number of VG's.

I might want to mention there is more than one way of appling half
the
number.
Did he remove every other one for example. Did he install just the
inboard or outboard
half. Or are his and mine the same.

The spacing I used is one in which I skipped every other pair
thereby
keeping the
authority of the VG's intact. Skipping every other one might be
asking a
little much of
them acting individually if that is what was done in this instance.

My spacing looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
/
&#92; not this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
OEM looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;

At no time have I experienced the low speed situation described and
could
haver real
easy when in the pattern at Mattoon that time. But then again I fly
a
Q-1.

Just some food for thought
Welsh





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


Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/SyTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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


Yahoo! Groups Links











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





---------------------------------
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@...

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



Brian A. Neiman, Sr
715-212-7024
http://www.BrianNeiman.com
"Leadership is influence, plain and simple" - Maxwell

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt















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


Yahoo! Groups Links










Re: VG placement concern

Brian Neiman, Sr. <brian_neiman@...>
 

Damn !
I'd be certain to have the VG's in place b4 tempting fate.

Keith L WeL Welsh <welshq1@...> wrote:
Hi Jerry:

Gotta apreciate your honesty. Had to have been a scarry thing knowing
the ground was comin up fast. I know them wangs can take quite a thumpin
and perhaps yours would've too. Who knows.
I've had excellent results with my setup and don't worry to much anymore
about how thick the clouds are.

When I departed enroute to Sullivan last summer I noticed the stick was a
little
heavier than normal at lift off. The climb executed normally though, then
realized I
was in a very light rain also I was flying quite heavy. Then about as
fast the rain was done
and the stick pressure returned to normal. Then bucked that 15k headwind
all the way there.
Hard to say if I would have had similar troubles in a heavy rain. Would
say the odds are
against me without knowing for sure.

When Burt Rutan was here in 95 he suggested I place duct tape half way
along the
the leading edge starting inboard. That would simulate flying in rain. He
cautioned about going
all the way across as it could be to much. Will give a test when the wx
warms a bit.
You got my curiousity up now.

Thanks for getin back.
Welsh

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:29:48 -0800 "Jerry Jerome" <jjflyboy@...>
writes:

Hi Keith, yes I applied my VGs as you describe, every other pair.
Not sure
how the quickie would land in that situation, low power, rain, but
my Q-2 at
least made it back to the runway, albeit not intact. It should also
be
mentioned that I had foam damage in the center section of my GU due
to a
leak in my main tank which I had fixed after noticing "signs". This
became
evident after I cut it out of the fuse after the accident. I know I
tap
tested it but I'm not sure if I did the center section - the fairing
at the
bottom covers up the area that was most affected by the leak. I
believe
this had weakened the structure but it is purly hypothetical at this
point
if the canard would have remained intact after that hard landing in
rain.


Regards,

Jerry Jerome

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith L WeL Welsh [mailto:welshq1@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:00 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] VG placement concern




Didn't save the message but remember reading of a Q2 under partial
power
in
rain experiencing sufficient loss of lift to endanger the flight.
This
person said to
have also applied 1/2 the number of VG's.

I might want to mention there is more than one way of appling half
the
number.
Did he remove every other one for example. Did he install just the
inboard or outboard
half. Or are his and mine the same.

The spacing I used is one in which I skipped every other pair
thereby
keeping the
authority of the VG's intact. Skipping every other one might be
asking a
little much of
them acting individually if that is what was done in this instance.

My spacing looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
/
&#92; not this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
OEM looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;

At no time have I experienced the low speed situation described and
could
haver real
easy when in the pattern at Mattoon that time. But then again I fly
a
Q-1.

Just some food for thought
Welsh





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


Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/SyTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


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


Yahoo! Groups Links









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





---------------------------------
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@...

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



Brian A. Neiman, Sr
715-212-7024
http://www.BrianNeiman.com
"Leadership is influence, plain and simple" - Maxwell

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt


Re: VG placement concern

Keith L WeL Welsh <welshq1@...>
 

Hi Jerry:

Gotta apreciate your honesty. Had to have been a scarry thing knowing
the ground was comin up fast. I know them wangs can take quite a thumpin
and perhaps yours would've too. Who knows.
I've had excellent results with my setup and don't worry to much anymore
about how thick the clouds are.

When I departed enroute to Sullivan last summer I noticed the stick was a
little
heavier than normal at lift off. The climb executed normally though, then
realized I
was in a very light rain also I was flying quite heavy. Then about as
fast the rain was done
and the stick pressure returned to normal. Then bucked that 15k headwind
all the way there.
Hard to say if I would have had similar troubles in a heavy rain. Would
say the odds are
against me without knowing for sure.

When Burt Rutan was here in 95 he suggested I place duct tape half way
along the
the leading edge starting inboard. That would simulate flying in rain. He
cautioned about going
all the way across as it could be to much. Will give a test when the wx
warms a bit.
You got my curiousity up now.

Thanks for getin back.
Welsh

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:29:48 -0800 "Jerry Jerome" <jjflyboy@...>
writes:


Hi Keith, yes I applied my VGs as you describe, every other pair.
Not sure
how the quickie would land in that situation, low power, rain, but
my Q-2 at
least made it back to the runway, albeit not intact. It should also
be
mentioned that I had foam damage in the center section of my GU due
to a
leak in my main tank which I had fixed after noticing "signs". This
became
evident after I cut it out of the fuse after the accident. I know I
tap
tested it but I'm not sure if I did the center section - the fairing
at the
bottom covers up the area that was most affected by the leak. I
believe
this had weakened the structure but it is purly hypothetical at this
point
if the canard would have remained intact after that hard landing in
rain.


Regards,

Jerry Jerome

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith L WeL Welsh [mailto:welshq1@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:00 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] VG placement concern




Didn't save the message but remember reading of a Q2 under partial
power
in
rain experiencing sufficient loss of lift to endanger the flight.
This
person said to
have also applied 1/2 the number of VG's.

I might want to mention there is more than one way of appling half
the
number.
Did he remove every other one for example. Did he install just the
inboard or outboard
half. Or are his and mine the same.

The spacing I used is one in which I skipped every other pair
thereby
keeping the
authority of the VG's intact. Skipping every other one might be
asking a
little much of
them acting individually if that is what was done in this instance.

My spacing looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
/
&#92; not this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;
OEM looks something like this / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92; / &#92;

At no time have I experienced the low speed situation described and
could
haver real
easy when in the pattern at Mattoon that time. But then again I fly
a
Q-1.

Just some food for thought
Welsh





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


Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5iY7fA/6WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/SyTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


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


Yahoo! Groups Links








Re: Powered glider registration

Jeff <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

I found the email exchange that I was talking about. My buddy Joe
sent an email to the EAA and Mr. Joe Norris answered his request for
assistance. Now don't get me wrong, just because the EAA tells you
something does not mean it is 100% correct, but apparently they have
talked about this with the FAA. Mr. Norris referenced FAA advisory
circular AC 21.17-2A which can be found at:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryC
ircular.nsf/0/eae91a15c5e11823862569b600563fbf/$FILE/AC21-17-2a.pdf

The chance of that link working is slim. If you go to
www.google.com and search for FAA advisory circular AC 21.17-2A and
it will be the first thing that comes up.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: Aurigema, Andrew N
To: Jeff LeTempt
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:00 AM
Subject: RE: Powered Motor Glider

1874 / ( span * span ) = must not exceed 0.62 (per foot
squared)

now you just know this formula was created for single span wings and
not equal span tandems. But with a little care, we should be able
to show that our wing spans ( as normalized for the weight they
carry ) do not violate the requirements.

So here is what I would propose :

gross weight : 1150 lbs

fore-wing : 65% of 1150 = 747 lbs
span 22 feet : span squared = 22 * 22 = 484
fore-wing weight / span squared = 747 / 484 = 1.54

This is not even close to 0.62. You will need fore-wing span of (
747 / 0.62 ) ^ 0.5 power = 34 feet

that is like an Aspect Ratio of 16 : 1 or greater.

This is doable, but requires a different canard and aft wing.

hope it helps

Drew

this was kind of fun ......................... i havent done this
sort of stuff in a year


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff LeTempt [mailto:letempt@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:36 PM
To: Aurigema, Andrew N
Subject: Powered Motor Glider


Drew,

Joe XXXXXX, my Dragonfly buddy from St Louis, has been building a
Dragonfly for quite some time. He lost his medical a few years ago
and will likely never get it back. He has been researching the
possibility of registering the Dragonfly as a self launched glider.
The document that covers the requirements can be found in AC 21.17-
2A. It all seems pretty straight forward, but there is a formula
that neither me or Joe can figure out. I figured since you are a
mad rocket scientist you could certainly figure it out. Here is the
extract from the AC that contains the requirements.

b. Additional Criteria for Powered Gliders.

(1) Powered fixed wing gliders may be type certificated under
Section 21.17(b) if:

(i) The number of occupants does not exceed two;

(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds); and

(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not
exceed 3.0 kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).

What the heck does the maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2)
does not exceed 3.0 kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2) mean? Will the Dragonfly
meet the requirement?

Thanks!!

Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Norris
To: carl La fong
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: glider


====================
We are pleased to provide this info as an EAA membership benefit.
To ensure that this service continues, renew your membership or join
EAA today by calling 800-843-3612 or 920-426-5912.
Visit EAA on the web at www.eaa.org
====================

Hello Joe,

The info on gliders (self-launch and otherwise) can be found in FAA
advisory circular AC 21.17-2A, which I have attached to this email.
This AC includes the formulas the FAA recognizes regarding glider
certification, both powered and unpowered. Even though this AC is
aimed toward type certificated gliders, the FAA Order that governs
experimental certification also refers to this AC as applicable to
experimental aircraft as well.

Let me know if you have further questions after looking over this
info.

Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Services
EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
888-322-4636, extension 6806
jnorris@...


-----Original Message-----
From: carl La fong
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 4:06 PM
To: info services
Subject: glider


Hello

I am trying to get information on what I need to be able to fly a
self launch glider, and what defines a self launch glider. Is it an
experimental aircraft category, what's the weight, speed,stall,ect
I just spent three hours at the FAA web site, and I so far cannot
find anything.

Any help is much appreciated.

Joe XXXXX








--- In Q-LIST@..., High Flyer <excflyer@y...> wrote:
The formula W/b2 =.62 is for regular gliders not experimental home
built. The space shot by Rutan was registered as an experimental
homebuilt glider.
Excflyer
Harpswell, ME


"Letempt, Jeffrey CW4" <jeffrey.letempt@u...> wrote:

I have a friend in the St Louis area with a Dragonfly and he has
been having
some problems with his medical. He did some research and sent me
an excerpt
from the regulation covering powered gliders. There was a formula
in the
regulation that neither of us understood so I sent it to my NASA
engineer
friend. He said there was no way a standard Dragonfly would even
come close
to meeting the requirements. I will see if I can dig up the email
correspondences regarding this subject.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: High Flyer [mailto:excflyer@y...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:33 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Powered glider registration



No medical required required, no limitations on aircraft(any stall
speed and
no upper limit on high speed or altiude), equipment ( controllable
prop,
retract gear, etc), Can night fly and go into more areas. If you
have a PP
ticket you can get a glider endorsement in about 3 hrs. flight
time.

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@t...> wrote:Please explain the benefits.
Glide ratio is 14:1 for my Q200 Best glide speed is 120mph
Mike Q-200 N3QP

excflyer wrote:

Has anyone registered their experimental Q2's as powered
gliders?
Don't think an experimental aircraft has to meet regular glider
criterion but if one considers the canard part of the wing since
it
contributes to lift, the bird would met some parameters. Could
not
find any gliding sink rate/as charts in the handbook but the bird
is
very clean and should be able to glide quite well. will dig out
the
info if we have no answers. There are many advantages to
registering
the bird as a powered/self launch glider. All the benifits of
sport
aircraft with none of the limitations.



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




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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@...

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




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?






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


Yahoo! Groups Links







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





---------------------------------
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@...

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.


Re: Powered glider registration

High Flyer <excflyer@...>
 

The formula W/b2 =.62 is for regular gliders not experimental home built. The space shot by Rutan was registered as an experimental homebuilt glider.
Excflyer
Harpswell, ME

"Letempt, Jeffrey CW4" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
I have a friend in the St Louis area with a Dragonfly and he has been having
some problems with his medical. He did some research and sent me an excerpt
from the regulation covering powered gliders. There was a formula in the
regulation that neither of us understood so I sent it to my NASA engineer
friend. He said there was no way a standard Dragonfly would even come close
to meeting the requirements. I will see if I can dig up the email
correspondences regarding this subject.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: High Flyer [mailto:excflyer@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:33 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Powered glider registration



No medical required required, no limitations on aircraft(any stall speed and
no upper limit on high speed or altiude), equipment ( controllable prop,
retract gear, etc), Can night fly and go into more areas. If you have a PP
ticket you can get a glider endorsement in about 3 hrs. flight time.

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...> wrote:Please explain the benefits.
Glide ratio is 14:1 for my Q200 Best glide speed is 120mph
Mike Q-200 N3QP

excflyer wrote:

Has anyone registered their experimental Q2's as powered gliders?
Don't think an experimental aircraft has to meet regular glider
criterion but if one considers the canard part of the wing since it
contributes to lift, the bird would met some parameters. Could not
find any gliding sink rate/as charts in the handbook but the bird is
very clean and should be able to glide quite well. will dig out the
info if we have no answers. There are many advantages to registering
the bird as a powered/self launch glider. All the benifits of sport
aircraft with none of the limitations.



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




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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@...

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




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?






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


Yahoo! Groups Links







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





---------------------------------
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@...

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.


Re: group-disregard post

slaterfloors <slaterfloors@...>
 

Found Peter Harris in the archives as the goto man for carbon spars.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "slaterfloors" <slaterfloors@y...>
wrote:

guys I hate to ask this questions because its been asked and told
many times over. Sooo....Im gonna ask anyway. Who is the source
for new carbon spars for the q-2 (I looked under files and photo's
and that contact info has been removed).

Thanks again

Trevor Slater
Livermore
slaterfloors@y...


group

slaterfloors <slaterfloors@...>
 

guys I hate to ask this questions because its been asked and told
many times over. Sooo....Im gonna ask anyway. Who is the source
for new carbon spars for the q-2 (I looked under files and photo's
and that contact info has been removed).

Thanks again

Trevor Slater
Livermore
slaterfloors@...


Looking for James Postma

HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...>
 

Jim Postma please email me off list at HawkiDoug@... as I have an issue I want to discuss with you and only you! :-)

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974


Re: Jim-Bob 6-pack article

David J. Gall
 

Bob,

Thanks for the excellent article.


David J. Gall


Re: Jim-Bob 6-pack article

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

Peter,

Probably the belcrank approach might maintain the tailwheel cable tension
better, but only marginally so. It has slightly better geometry when the
tailspring flexes. I doubt that it would make much difference in the real
world. Kittleson's old airplane is now owned by Geoff Rutledge who shares my
hangar. It seems to work every bit as well as mine. In the plans version,
the cables are tensioned first by the pedal return springs, and extra
tension comes from the pilot.

Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Bob in relation to the two different cable mods , which method will best
maintain tailwheel cable tension during the ground run when the tail spring
is flexing ? In the plans version the tension is taken up by the pilot at
the pedals.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Farnam
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 5:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article




Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: raynergang [mailto:rayners@...]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:11 AM
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] Jim-Bob 6-pack article


Bob, I have just received today (the Atlantic is big) the Q-Talk and I
just want to say thanks for the article. It's good to see all the
information on these useful (necessary) modifications in one place with
enough detail to get to work. I'm pleased to say I have built most of
them
mods into my Q - except the toe brakes (kept the hand operation, based
on
advice from an experienced friend) and the bellcrank for the rudder/tail
wheel cables.

I have a question about the bellcrank: you say that Al Kittleson's
approach is equally good and it's the way I was expecting to do the job.
Is
there any advantage to the bellcrank method, because otherwise it seems
to
be more complicated (so less reliable?) for no reason? Another simpler
way
could also be to use two cables from the link on each side - with the
suitable turn-buckles and springs as necessary.

Chris,

The advantages to the belcrank method over Kittleson's approach is
that it
was easy to make it strong. It is also convenient to adjust the rudder
pedal/rudder/tailwheel ratios easily. It is not as easy to modify the
lower
rudder bearing to take the 600 or so pounds of load that I wanted it to
take. The US Air Force physiology handbook says that 150 lbs of load is
reasonable to generate with your foot. The rudder pedals multiply that
by 2x
each giving a total of 600 pounds load easily possible. If you can make
it
safe for that load, Kittleson's method is simpler and is what is used by
most certified taildraggers.

The problem with the two cables originating at the link without the
belcrank is that the loads still end up at the rudder bearing, because
the
tailwheel springs will stretch, thereby transferring the load to the
rudder.
Better to use either Kittleson's approach, or the belcrank approach.

Re hand brakes v. toe brakes, I chose toe brakes because that is what
I
was used to plus I wanted both hands free for throttle, stick and
reflexer.
I understand that in Europe, hand brakes are much more widespread than
in
the US. Both clearly work, so use whatever you are comfortable with. The
important thing is to get the differential braking which is such an
important part of control of any taildragger.

Bob F.
N200QK



I already used a beefed-up lower rudder bearing (I saw a Q with a
broken
original one) and so it is now the same 3/4" phenolic as the elevator
centre
mounts. Is that beefed up enough do you know?

Thanks for the info.

Chris Rayner (Q-200; painting and decorating it)

PS - to Doug, welcome to the hot seat. You've got your work cut out
to
better the Richardson team (so thanks to them also), but I'm certainly
looking forward to good things. Get printing those decals - I expect to
claim one!





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






------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--

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.







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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
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.







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





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.