Date   

Re: Revmaster

Larry Severson
 

At 08:42 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

Or ask Revmaster if they sell a spark plug socket or recommend a brand
They don't, except to say "Buy a quality socket". They sent me a ground down one.


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


Re: Revmaster

Larry Severson
 

At 06:36 AM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

I'm not recommending a Great Plains VW head, but when they machine their 2nd hole it has enough material removed to get your socket around the plug. I'm very surprized Revmaster doesn't do the same. Dave, maybe you should ask for it to be done.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
Joe's explanation is that the extra fin removal would result in less strength in the bolt area. The whole change over was caused by head cracks in the bolt area.


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


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
causes them to go off the side of the runway
(dragging brake on one side is a MAJOR problem)

, if they get too close
to it...
Ouch

or, due to the rudder being too ineffective below a certain
speed?
yes, 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 to
be larger?
Yes, 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@socal.rr.com


Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/

Mark A. Pearson <wlkabout@...>
 

Chris;
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@yahoogroups.com
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@yahoogroups.com, "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@yahoogroups.com
> 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@yahoogroups.com, 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,
Other than that, how is the auto plug conversion working out? Dave D
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@socal.rr.com


Re: Revmaster

Steve <sham@...>
 

Tad, I bought a deepwell socket and ground the outside diameter. Works well.

Steve Ham

----- Original Message -----
From: Tad Simpson
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
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@msn.com 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@yahoogroups.com, "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@yahoogroups.com
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@yahoogroups.com, 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.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







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@yahoo.com)
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

Jim Patillo
 

Pat,

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@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:

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


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,

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@yahoogroups.com
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:

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@yahoogroups.com
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@yahoogroups.com, 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@yahoogroups.com, Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...> wrote:

First, thanks to everyone who keeps writing on this issue. Fuel
starvation
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:

[snip]

The design parameter for the fuel tank vent line is that it
either be
impervious to fuel entering the line (ever - not realistic) or
else be
capable
of performing its vent function when fuel gets into it. To do
that requires
that it either be self-purging when it gets fuel in it, or that
it be able to
flow air (in sufficient volume) even when there's fuel in it. A
short vent
line extending up from the top of the tank or filler cap has the
self-purging
capability with the added advantage that gravity works with ram
pressure to
purge the line in normal flight.

A long vent line extending down through the bottom of the
fuselage has the
distinct disadvantage of having gravity working against ram
pressure as
previously discussed. The pressure differential needed to purge
the line by
forcing fuel up into the tank is apparently not available, so the
line must
either be self-draining against ram pressure or else have a shunt
to capture
the fuel (up to some assumed reasonable amount) in a secondary
tank of some
kind for later return to the main tank. That is a bad idea for
lots of
reasons, so we're left with designing a self-draining vent line.

As already noted, the diameter of a tube has a big effect on its
ability to
pass air and fuel in opposite directions simultaneously. The
length of the
tube and the relative heights of its ends have an effect on its
ability to
trap and retain a slug of fuel (siphon effect). A short length of
small
diameter tubing at the airframe exit is tolerable because ram
pressure could
force a small slug of fuel up against the action of gravity;
likewise, a
short
length of small diameter tubing is tolerable at the top of the
tank to "turn
the corner" and start the vent line in a downward direction.

Its the long vertical part of the small-diameter vent line that
is the
problem
in the QAC design. This section of the vent line can hold a slug
of fuel just
like when you cap off the top of your soda straw and pull a slug
of your
favorite beverage up out of the cup. Try the same stunt with a
piece of 5/8"
tubing and you'll find all the soda (fuel) draining back into the
cup as you
withdraw the tubing.

So, replace the long vertical part of the fuel tank vent line
with a larger
diameter line and you should have a self-draining line that is
capable of
passing air even when there's a bit of fuel in it.

That's my opinion.

David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:bfarnam%40pacbell.net>bfarnam@...
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Fuel Vent Line
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:39:44 -0700 (PDT)


Dave,
I wonder if the pressure differential on the vent tube with a
fuel plug
would
allow bubbles to get through into the tank. Mark Summers and I
were
discussing
that last evening. What do you think?
Bob F.




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@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@...> wrote:


No flaming here Chris, if you took it that way I apologize. I'm
one of
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@yahoogroups.com, "chrishazlitt" <chrishazlitt@>
wrote:

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@yahoogroups.com, 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.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]