|
Re: Kitplane Article
Larry Severson
At 05:00 AM 8/12/2006, you wrote:
Do you think it is due to the landing gear on the wingtips which(dragging brake on one side is a MAJOR problem) , if they get too closeOuch or, due to the rudder being too ineffective below a certainyes, minimum rudder control below 65MPH and virtually no tail wheel control until below 45. If the rudder is part of the problem has anyone modified theirs toYes, several Dragonfly type rudders have been installed on Q2s (including on my plane). Rudder control established down to 25MPH. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@...
|
|
|
|
Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/
Mark A. Pearson <wlkabout@...>
Chris;
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Where did you see this inspiring video? I'm putting a 532 in my Q1 and could use some serious motivation to get back to actually working on it. Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: chrishazlitt To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:39 PM Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/ When I post here please forget I bought a DF project, I'm still wanting a Q too but don't want to build one, I already have something to work on that way. The Q1 is of interest to me because of a video I saw that was increadible, but it actually wasn't a Q1, it had a 583 Rotax in it. I realize that some don't like the thought of using that particular engine on a Q1 but wow, it flew like a bird with the high HP. Another fellow has been in communication with me via email about his 53 HP Super Quickie and he said the same thing, it is as close to flying like a bird was he has ever felt in an airplane. Initially, my interest was in the Q2's, or Q200 and I can't say I wouldn't buy one of those over a single place Quickie if I could pull enough cash together and one showed up at the right time... I could easily go that direction instead. I think the rudder question comes from us know near nothings about this aircraft due to how tiny the rudder looks in comparision to other two place aircraft we have either seen or flown. I've got hours, soloed on my 16th birthday with over 2K hours now in 25 different aircraft, but none in a canard so I suppose my having bought this DF project and wishing I owned a Quickie of some kind is foolish for having never flown with someone in one... yet, if it flies, I don't care, it's beautiful! It can be fast, require skills I may need to hone up on to fly it but wow, what a beautiful machine. I am have been working as a senior engineer in telecommunications so in my own element I am considered very capable but with homebuilts, being completely new to them I feel somewhat like like a fish out of water in these groups and too defensive when someone tells me to stop being redundant with my questions accusing Jim of flamming me when it appears the folk here just aren't afraid to say what they think... well... I did that too. I was primed because I had just got finished barking at Sammy over at the Q200 engine group the night before (email) for shewing me away from his group in public for my having included a question about the Jabiru engine in a post on the O-200 I had made and then the next thing I see when I get up in the morning is is a post here with comments I wasn't in a mood for before coffee. Sometimes I think these things are somehow connected? LOL... Thanks for your help guys.... I will do more archive searching bofore clogging the group up with so many newbie questions in the future. --- In Q-LIST@..., "Keith Welsh" <kfly@...> wrote: > > HI Cris: > > So your looking for a Q1? I usually scan over these things and perhaps missed the Q1 thing earlier. Not that much Q1 stuff on the LIST. > > My reason for writing is that you will get more informative answers to your questions from the Q1 crowd than the Q2 guys. Mainly because most Q2 fellas have never flown a Q1. And most Q1 fellas have had a ride in a Q2. Therefore your handling questions for the Q1 will most likly get different answers from the Q1 guys. The two Q's are really quite different animals despite looking the same. > > Now to ease your pain a bit. The Q1 is slow, performance similar in stall and cruise to a C-150. That kind of plane performance wise, at least with the Onan. It ain't fast on landing, final at 70 and touchdown in the mid 50's, very responsive to control input and very pleasantly responsive to aileron steering on the ground at speeds 20 and above. The rudder is more than enough to execute a very nice slip when needed, it slips just as good as my C-170 proving the rudder is FINE, I get so blown away at these rudder discussions they are so unnecessary, ever wonder why the flyers never complain about the rudder only the builders and dreamers?, and together with the ailerons the directional control is more than adequate in x-winds. > > The only control surface with which I would like to see more authority are the ailerons. When in a steep 60+ degree bank I personally would like the plane to roll out a little faster. The learning curve will be more concentrated with the stuff not necessarily associated with with the span cans like learning the tricks of aileron steering, very cool when mastered, the landing configuration as opposed to the flying configuration. Most don't realize the Q1 is in climb configuration when setting on the ground. The configuration from flying to landing flair will take a little getting used to but that will come quickly. On the other hand the Q2 definately benefits from a few upgrades, the Gall and 6 pack, but the Q1 doesn't it's good per plans. > > All in all the Q1 is a fine flying machine which doesn't need deviated from the plans. Build it per those plans and you will have a plane to enjoy for many years. > > Keith Welsh > 340+ hrs N494K > Flying since May 1989 > > P.S. I can understand why Jim and others get flamed at rudder and handling questions. Got any idea how many times they have answered them? Where these notions come from is a mystery to me but they sure linger from generation to generation. Just like going from a C-150 to a Super Decathlon there is a learning curve and patients and knowledge is golden. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: chrishazlitt > To: Q-LIST@... > Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:55 PM > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo > > > I want a flying Q1... trying to get the money together now for when > the right opportunity presents itself. That is why so many questions > from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause for troubles, > didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbie questions, > it's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to the extent > he did to educate me but if someone wants to flame me for being > stupid, please email me directly in the future. :) > > --- In Q-LIST@..., Q2FLYBOY@ wrote: > > > > The Q rudder is fine.Plenty of authority in x winds and steering. > The > > problem is there is not enough weight on the tailwheel to make it > steer. The > > reflexor takes care of that . It corrects how the parts wher glued > together in > > building. > > > > Dave Carlson > > Q2 Revmaster 400 +hrs never dinged. In garage for sale. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|
|
|
|
Re: Revmaster
Larry Severson
At 08:46 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote:
Larry,My only problem so far has been engine cooling. The engine starts and runs the same, but spark plugs are a lot cheaper. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@...
|
|
|
|
Re: Revmaster
Steve <sham@...>
Tad, I bought a deepwell socket and ground the outside diameter. Works well.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Steve Ham
----- Original Message -----
From: Tad Simpson To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:07 AM Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Revmaster I have a spam can project with a revmaster and to get the lower plugs/plug wires, I went to the harware store and got the $1.99 cheap spark plug wrench made from what looks like thinwall pipe. I cut a slot in the side to allow to get around the plug wire and use the 2nd one to get the plug. Sure made it easy for me. Tad --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
|
|
|
|
Re: Livermore Fly-in
Boddicker <trumanst@...>
Jim,
Don't know if you have spoken with Sam Kittle or not. I plan to be there. Kevin Boddicker Luana, Iowa Tri Q200 N7868B 23.9 hours Flying!!!! on 8/13/06 11:45 AM, Jim Patillo at logistics_engineering@... wrote: P.S. As Pat said we are 5 days and counting. It's getting late now so please let us know "by reply on this list" who's coming so we can have enough food on hand. Thanks, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 785 hours in type - approximately 1000 landings! Any questions?
|
|
|
|
Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/
chrishazlitt <chrishazlitt@...>
When I post here please forget I bought a DF project, I'm still
wanting a Q too but don't want to build one, I already have something to work on that way. The Q1 is of interest to me because of a video I saw that was increadible, but it actually wasn't a Q1, it had a 583 Rotax in it. I realize that some don't like the thought of using that particular engine on a Q1 but wow, it flew like a bird with the high HP. Another fellow has been in communication with me via email about his 53 HP Super Quickie and he said the same thing, it is as close to flying like a bird was he has ever felt in an airplane. Initially, my interest was in the Q2's, or Q200 and I can't say I wouldn't buy one of those over a single place Quickie if I could pull enough cash together and one showed up at the right time... I could easily go that direction instead. I think the rudder question comes from us know near nothings about this aircraft due to how tiny the rudder looks in comparision to other two place aircraft we have either seen or flown. I've got hours, soloed on my 16th birthday with over 2K hours now in 25 different aircraft, but none in a canard so I suppose my having bought this DF project and wishing I owned a Quickie of some kind is foolish for having never flown with someone in one... yet, if it flies, I don't care, it's beautiful! It can be fast, require skills I may need to hone up on to fly it but wow, what a beautiful machine. I am have been working as a senior engineer in telecommunications so in my own element I am considered very capable but with homebuilts, being completely new to them I feel somewhat like like a fish out of water in these groups and too defensive when someone tells me to stop being redundant with my questions accusing Jim of flamming me when it appears the folk here just aren't afraid to say what they think... well... I did that too. I was primed because I had just got finished barking at Sammy over at the Q200 engine group the night before (email) for shewing me away from his group in public for my having included a question about the Jabiru engine in a post on the O-200 I had made and then the next thing I see when I get up in the morning is is a post here with comments I wasn't in a mood for before coffee. Sometimes I think these things are somehow connected? LOL... Thanks for your help guys.... I will do more archive searching bofore clogging the group up with so many newbie questions in the future. --- In Q-LIST@..., "Keith Welsh" <kfly@...> wrote: perhaps missed the Q1 thing earlier. Not that much Q1 stuff on the LIST. answers to your questions from the Q1 crowd than the Q2 guys. Mainly because most Q2 fellas have never flown a Q1. And most Q1 fellas have had a ride in a Q2. Therefore your handling questions for the Q1 will most likly get different answers from the Q1 guys. The two Q's are really quite different animals despite looking the same. in stall and cruise to a C-150. That kind of plane performance wise, at least with the Onan. It ain't fast on landing, final at 70 and touchdown in the mid 50's, very responsive to control input and very pleasantly responsive to aileron steering on the ground at speeds 20 and above. The rudder is more than enough to execute a very nice slip when needed, it slips just as good as my C-170 proving the rudder is FINE, I get so blown away at these rudder discussions they are so unnecessary, ever wonder why the flyers never complain about the rudder only the builders and dreamers?, and together with the ailerons the directional control is more than adequate in x-winds. authority are the ailerons. When in a steep 60+ degree bank I personally would like the plane to roll out a little faster. The learning curve will be more concentrated with the stuff not necessarily associated with with the span cans like learning the tricks of aileron steering, very cool when mastered, the landing configuration as opposed to the flying configuration. Most don't realize the Q1 is in climb configuration when setting on the ground. The configuration from flying to landing flair will take a little getting used to but that will come quickly. On the other hand the Q2 definately benefits from a few upgrades, the Gall and 6 pack, but the Q1 doesn't it's good per plans. deviated from the plans. Build it per those plans and you will have a plane to enjoy for many years. handling questions. Got any idea how many times they have answered them? Where these notions come from is a mystery to me but they sure linger from generation to generation. Just like going from a C-150 to a Super Decathlon there is a learning curve and patients and knowledge is golden. when the right opportunity presents itself. That is why so manyquestions from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause fortroubles, didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbiequestions, it's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to theextent he did to educate me but if someone wants to flame me for beingsteering. Theit steer. Theglued together in
|
|
|
|
Re: Flames
rbarbour27@...
Jim - This guy Hazlitt is another one trying to acquire a Quickie on the
cheap. Sometime in the recent past he must've received a transfusion from one of the other cheapskates who demanded that we more experienced builders are going to have to spoon feed them 'cause they came onboard late in the program.........yeah right! All the cheapskates have to do is mimic the geezers by buying all of the back issues of Q-talk and subscribe to the upcoming issues. Dick Barbour Tri-Q-200 building Rogers, AR
|
|
|
|
Q2 or Q200 WANTED!
Danny Creech <dannycreech@...>
I'm looking for a Q2 or Q200 to purchase. I almost bought a Q2 back in
mid 1999 in the LA area. I had the cash in hand but after looking at and then flying it, I had to pass. The craftsmanship was quite poor. I really wasn't looking for a project at that time. Now that I am established in my career, I am looking for one to buy. I would prefer one with lighting and full instruments already set up. I may consider a project depending on how good the craftsmanship is and how far along it is to being finished. I'm not going to say price isn't a factor, but I am willing to pay for quality. If you have a lead on one, please email me directly. Thanks, Danny Creech (dannycreech@...) ATP
|
|
|
|
Turbin Q2?
Danny Creech <dannycreech@...>
Okay you Q2 guys don't laugh at me. But, has anyone put a turbin (and
I'm not talken about a midle-estern hat) in a Q2? I saw a company (ATP now called something else) selling a complete set up at Oshkosh 2001. It has 200hp, is light weight, and only about 25K. They have put one in a RV4(?). I can already see the draw backs. Loss of range due to fuel consumption, etc. But was just wondering. Thanks, Danny Creech (Want-a-be Q2 or Q200 owner)
|
|
|
|
Re: Flames
JMasal@...
IMNSHO, You can almost be sure to get flamed if you ask for a simple quick
answer to a question that is not simple AND you respond that you don't have the time and/or interest to go through the archives to educate yourself on what is already known. Yes the archive is big because we quickers are passionate people with passionate opinions and an enormous amount of brainpower in a wide range of fields. We know these aircraft and we have kept that knowledge readily available for over 20 years since the company ran aground. We have given exhaustive answers to seemingly simple questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over vomit and over and over and over and over x 73 again. Yes, a new guy popping out of the weeds doesn't know this history. Tough luck but we are pretty sick of the many guys who want quick answers, do not want to do any work on their own and who many times blow off the advice given. So if you have a propensity for easy offense, toughen up. We will give the answers to serious students of aviation. It's our site, we don't have to be sweet to babies or dopes (ooooopps, don't take offense you guys out in the weeds) sorry about your luck, jack we can do what we want. Come at us with some willingness to work and you will get exhaustive answers. Lurk around awhile and you will see that is so. j.
|
|
|
|
Re: Livermore Fly-in
Pat,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Bob and I will be happy to assist you for an article. The scale P38 was owned by Watler Treadwell. It is now in a museum in Southern California. Will try to get you in touch with Walter here in LVK when you arrive. P.S. As Pat said we are 5 days and counting. It's getting late now so please let us know "by reply on this list" who's coming so we can have enough food on hand. Thanks, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 785 hours in type - approximately 1000 landings! Any questions?
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Livermore Fly-in
Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
It's five days and counting... :)
Jack and Diane, Will you two be attending again this year? Veronica asked me to ask you. ---------------------------------------------------- Jim, Can we get some air-to-air shots of you and Bob in formation? I'd like to put your planes on the cover of OCNTACT! Magazine and do a PROPER Q article. (I'm in the "not happy with the Kitplanes article" camp). ---------------------------------------------------- Anyone in the Livermore area, Several years ago there was a scale P-38 that showed up at our little gathering. Is that plane still around? Is it possible to put me in touch with the owner so I can get an interview and an article out of it?... maybe even some air-to-air photos as well? THANKS!!! Pat
|
|
|
|
Re: Revmaster
REBECCA SIMPSON
I have a spam can project with a revmaster and to get the lower plugs/plug wires, I went to the harware store and got the $1.99 cheap spark plug wrench made from what looks like thinwall pipe. I cut a slot in the side to allow to get around the plug wire and use the 2nd one to get the plug. Sure made it easy for me.
Tad --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Re: Jim Patillo
James Cartwright <james.cartwright@...>
Chris,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
If you are looking for a direct answer then look at it this way. The airplane does not need a bigger rudder and the handling problems are not due to the landing gear being on the wing tip. Here is one example to debunk that theory. A Pitts S-1 one has just as much directional instability as a Q and it has a conventional landing gear and a much larger rudder. The biggest problem is wheel alignment just like in a car with high speeds if you do not have a proper alignment on the car it can become very twitchy and easily run out of control where at lower speeds you would not recognize a problem with the alignment. Just my opinion. James Cartwright Q-200 Piper Cub Wanna be Q-1 Owner Lebanon TN.
---- Original Message -----
From: chrishazlitt To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 4:20 PM Subject: [Q-LIST] Jim Patillo Jim A public flogging isn't in order here, why do some folk, such as yourself in this instance insist on attacking others for what they consider stupid or redundant questions in public when they could be more effective my emailing these complains in private? This kind of display isn't good for the group as a whole and has now sparked this response form me, so now, I am just as bad... but I didn't start it. I just wanted to know if there is a main reason people are having directional control without spending hours going through the archives. Look at most of the questions just asked by others on this very page and most of those could be researched after HOURS of searching. Back to my question, I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts on why individuals are having troubles but other than the toe in problem with the wheels mounted out on the ends of the wings the size of the rudder sure appears to be the main trouble to me. Agree? Disagree? Just ignore this if you don't like my tone or questions or email me in private with your complaints. The group is better served if you would do that.
|
|
|
|
Re: Jim Patillo
Keith Welsh <kfly@...>
HI Cris:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
So your looking for a Q1? I usually scan over these things and perhaps missed the Q1 thing earlier. Not that much Q1 stuff on the LIST. My reason for writing is that you will get more informative answers to your questions from the Q1 crowd than the Q2 guys. Mainly because most Q2 fellas have never flown a Q1. And most Q1 fellas have had a ride in a Q2. Therefore your handling questions for the Q1 will most likly get different answers from the Q1 guys. The two Q's are really quite different animals despite looking the same. Now to ease your pain a bit. The Q1 is slow, performance similar in stall and cruise to a C-150. That kind of plane performance wise, at least with the Onan. It ain't fast on landing, final at 70 and touchdown in the mid 50's, very responsive to control input and very pleasantly responsive to aileron steering on the ground at speeds 20 and above. The rudder is more than enough to execute a very nice slip when needed, it slips just as good as my C-170 proving the rudder is FINE, I get so blown away at these rudder discussions they are so unnecessary, ever wonder why the flyers never complain about the rudder only the builders and dreamers?, and together with the ailerons the directional control is more than adequate in x-winds. The only control surface with which I would like to see more authority are the ailerons. When in a steep 60+ degree bank I personally would like the plane to roll out a little faster. The learning curve will be more concentrated with the stuff not necessarily associated with with the span cans like learning the tricks of aileron steering, very cool when mastered, the landing configuration as opposed to the flying configuration. Most don't realize the Q1 is in climb configuration when setting on the ground. The configuration from flying to landing flair will take a little getting used to but that will come quickly. On the other hand the Q2 definately benefits from a few upgrades, the Gall and 6 pack, but the Q1 doesn't it's good per plans. All in all the Q1 is a fine flying machine which doesn't need deviated from the plans. Build it per those plans and you will have a plane to enjoy for many years. Keith Welsh 340+ hrs N494K Flying since May 1989 P.S. I can understand why Jim and others get flamed at rudder and handling questions. Got any idea how many times they have answered them? Where these notions come from is a mystery to me but they sure linger from generation to generation. Just like going from a C-150 to a Super Decathlon there is a learning curve and patients and knowledge is golden.
----- Original Message -----
From: chrishazlitt To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:55 PM Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo I want a flying Q1... trying to get the money together now for when the right opportunity presents itself. That is why so many questions from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause for troubles, didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbie questions, it's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to the extent he did to educate me but if someone wants to flame me for being stupid, please email me directly in the future. :) --- In Q-LIST@..., Q2FLYBOY@... wrote: > > The Q rudder is fine.Plenty of authority in x winds and steering. The > problem is there is not enough weight on the tailwheel to make it steer. The > reflexor takes care of that . It corrects how the parts wher glued together in > building. > > Dave Carlson > Q2 Revmaster 400 +hrs never dinged. In garage for sale. > > > >
|
|
|
|
tail wheel airplanes
Darrell Daniels <log@...>
I s it not a little unfair to just pick on the Quickie. From what know and from what other pilots have told me the little biplanes such as the eagle and the pitts are a handful on the ground.. My flight instructor once told me to be careful in any short tail wheel airplane Just my Thoughts Darrell Daniels Tri Q . No problems.
|
|
|
|
Re: Fuel Vent Line
chrishazlitt <chrishazlitt@...>
I have been cut and paste'ing the posts in that thread myself,
thanks for sharing on this subject, I had no idea there was that much to know. Chris --- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...> wrote: starvation is one of the classic killers in early flights of experimentalaircraft and well worth a lot of attention.pipe narrowing to a small diameter tube as it exits the airframe. Ihave concern we could still end up with a fluid column trapped abovethe narrow vent tube. Perhaps some experiments are in order.on top of the pickup truck, drive down the freeway at 100 mph, see if ramair pressure will clear the vent tube . . . "Gee officer, I wasn'tspeeding . . . this is a scientific experiment . . . yes, I'm working on anairplane design . . . No, I'm not crazy. Well I don't think I am . . .sure, I'll talk to the nice psych tech . . . " NOT GONNA HAPPEN!)fuel . . . in a secondary tank . . . That is a bad idea for lots ofreasons . . ." Here is an idea that might work:second vent line from the fuel fill to below the canard. In essence, Iam using the main fuel tank as the "secondary tank" in your earliervertical in each of two separate tubes, unlikely to develop a significantsiphon effect in either. Should develop positive pressure in main and headertank in all situations.vent lines much less vulnerable to siphon effect negative pressure?comments when I get home.either be else beimpervious to fuel entering the line (ever - not realistic) or that requirescapable it be able tothat it either be self-purging when it gets fuel in it, or that short ventflow air (in sufficient volume) even when there's fuel in it. A self-purgingline extending up from the top of the tank or filler cap has the pressure tocapability with the added advantage that gravity works with ram fuselage has thepurge the line in normal flight. pressure asdistinct disadvantage of having gravity working against ram the line bypreviously discussed. The pressure differential needed to purge line mustforcing fuel up into the tank is apparently not available, so the to captureeither be self-draining against ram pressure or else have a shunt tank of somethe fuel (up to some assumed reasonable amount) in a secondary lots ofkind for later return to the main tank. That is a bad idea for ability toreasons, so we're left with designing a self-draining vent line. length of thepass air and fuel in opposite directions simultaneously. The ability totube and the relative heights of its ends have an effect on its smalltrap and retain a slug of fuel (siphon effect). A short length of pressure coulddiameter tubing at the airframe exit is tolerable because ram likewise, aforce a small slug of fuel up against the action of gravity; tank to "turnshort is thethe corner" and start the vent line in a downward direction. of fuel justproblem of yourlike when you cap off the top of your soda straw and pull a slug piece of 5/8"favorite beverage up out of the cup. Try the same stunt with a cup as youtubing and you'll find all the soda (fuel) draining back into the with a largerwithdraw the tubing. capable ofdiameter line and you should have a self-draining line that is fuel plugpassing air even when there's a bit of fuel in it. werewould discussing
|
|
|
|
Re: Jim Patillo
chrishazlitt <chrishazlitt@...>
I was primed to react, was bit twice by two others on boards related
to the Q or DF and had a short fuse earlier today for other reasons. My momma always said I was "too sensitive"... LOL.. --- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo" <logistics_engineering@...> wrote: one of the biggest Q proponents you will ever come across. I spent 20years and 4000 hours making my dream come true. I'm happy to hear you'rewould simply take the time to reserach the archives you would find 99%the information you are looking for. Why not give it a try. If you thenassisted take offs. We've been there and done that. The plane works fine thewrote: when questionsthe right opportunity presents itself. That is why so many troubles,from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause for questions,didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbie extentit's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to the steering.he did to educate me but if someone wants to flame me for being itTheproblem is there is not enough weight on the tailwheel to make gluedsteer. Thereflexor takes care of that . It corrects how the parts wher together inbuilding.
|
|
|
|
Re: Jim Patillo
No flaming here Chris, if you took it that way I apologize. I'm one of
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
the biggest Q proponents you will ever come across. I spent 20 years and 4000 hours making my dream come true. I'm happy to hear you're considering a Q, your continued enthusiam and that you are asking questions. It's just these questions along with a handful of others are always the ones asked from new people that get on this list. If you would simply take the time to reserach the archives you would find 99% the information you are looking for. Why not give it a try. If you then can't find the answer ask away and you'll get the answer. We don't need a bigger rudder or a different wing or rocket assisted take offs. We've been there and done that. The plane works fine the way it is. Good luck in your venture. Best regards, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200
--- In Q-LIST@..., "chrishazlitt" <chrishazlitt@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Fuel Vent Line
Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
First, thanks to everyone who keeps writing on this issue. Fuel starvation
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
is one of the classic killers in early flights of experimental aircraft and well worth a lot of attention. Second, Dave Gall, you seem to be advocating a large diameter down pipe narrowing to a small diameter tube as it exits the airframe. I have concern we could still end up with a fluid column trapped above the narrow vent tube. Perhaps some experiments are in order. (Lets see, mock up of fuel tank, 2 or 3 vent tube designs, mount on top of the pickup truck, drive down the freeway at 100 mph, see if ram air pressure will clear the vent tube . . . "Gee officer, I wasn't speeding . . . this is a scientific experiment . . . yes, I'm working on an airplane design . . . No, I'm not crazy. Well I don't think I am . . . sure, I'll talk to the nice psych tech . . . " NOT GONNA HAPPEN!) Also, Dave you wrote: "or else have a shunt to capture the fuel . . . in a secondary tank . . . That is a bad idea for lots of reasons . . ." Here is an idea that might work: Run a fuel vent line from the header to the fuel fill tube, then a second vent line from the fuel fill to below the canard. In essence, I am using the main fuel tank as the "secondary tank" in your earlier suggestion. Drawback: Complexity, weight. Advantages: short vertical in each of two separate tubes, unlikely to develop a significant siphon effect in either. Should develop positive pressure in main and header tank in all situations. In other words, why not replace a long vent line that can generate significant negative pressure thru siphon effects with two short vent lines much less vulnerable to siphon effect negative pressure? I will be off line for 36-48 hours (work) but look forward to any comments when I get home. Mike Perry (18 months away from needing this question answered but still very interested in a safe fuel system when I get there)
At 12:03 PM 8/11/2006 -0800, Dave Gall wrote:
|
|
|