Hi Jim,



I had similar results in some "unscheduled" oil flow tests on my Tri-Q2
with an LS1. The specific point I saw was the arched clean area about
4-5 inches above the canard / fuselage intersection. I always wondered
what the air was doing right in the contour between the canard and
fuselage. Some had suggested that it was compressing the air there
which would cause drag and less of a V shape and more of an L shape
there would help. That is a compound low pressure area from the canard
shape as well as the fuselage shape. In fact, it is low enough to suck
loose oil from inside the cowling (hence my "tests"). You know I think
Burt and co. really had it right on the Quickie by putting the major
cowling exit air out over the canard through those gills. On the Q2/xx
we try to dump the cooling air out into a high pressure area under the
fuselage and we have these two nice low pressure areas. I'm sure there
are other considerations, though. The Eagle 150 uses this area for
their cooling air exit.



Anyway, thanks for sharing the photos.



Dave Richardson

Tri-Q2 825DR 69 hrs.

I believe he had them installed at the flyin Phil.
JIm
--- In Q-LIST@..., britmcman@... wrote:

Jim:

I took careful note of Mark's VG arrangement, but saw no VGs in close
proximity to the upper aft inboard canard region. The implication

was that there

were some special placements of VGs in that area to keep the air

attached.

I too have a very streamlined oil tank. It even has a place to

store the

carburetor.;)

Phil


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

Doug would you mind forwarding a copy of the loading test to me also, I have been thinking of doing it as i'm about to start on the firewall forward and would like to feel confident in the airframe first. Thank you
Mark Fitzgerald
Timaru New Zealand

Paul, could you send that static load write up to me as well at: HawkiDoug@... Thanks!

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

Hi Tom and Bruce

I have a write up and advice on static load testing written by Marc Waddelow (designer of the 'Waddelow sparless canard') if it would help.
I'll have to scan it in and send it to your personal email address.....this Q list will not accept attachments.

Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England

Bugs can change my stall speed about 7 mph.
Bruce Crain




________________________________________________________________________
Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month!
Unlimited Internet Access with 1GB of Email Storage.
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!

Hi James,

I sure butchered that one! Just to big a hurry, lots to do. Hopefully,
everyone knew I meant, "No one will go hungry".

Very Best Regards,

Spudley

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the heads ups. It looks like it started as a Q-2 and then
changeover to an O-200 motor.

The Q-2/200 belongs to:


Name MAGNINO MARK S
Street 5637 N COLONY
City THE COLONY State TEXAS Zip Code
75056
County DENTON
Country UNITED STATES

Originally built by:
Serial Number 2735
Manufacturer Name EIBEN THEODORE

Certificate Issue Date 06/28/2005
Model Q-2

Somebody should give him a call and fill him in on the event. Anybdoy
got a e-mail address or a phone, too late for mail. Mr. Masal you have
any inside scoop on this gentleman?

Also Dave you coming to the event. Haven't seen any registration?? Or
are you still in "Mooney Boot Camp"??

Later, Spud

This happened to the Canadian aircraft industry back in the 1950's with the Avro Arrow project which sadly put an end to one of the leading edge design teams of that era, many of whom moved to the U.S. to work in your developing space industry. Unfortunately Canada has never recovered from that big faux pas by the government of the day.

I just saw all of these birds, at the Hondo fly-in. I
should have tried to acquire one then. Many were good
looking planes, but most had hail damage to the tail
feathers.
I agree, what a waste.
Kevin

--- oneskydog@... wrote:

In a message dated 9/18/2006 5:31:27 PM Mountain
Daylight Time,
fifty101fifty@... writes:




that's what happens when you have to much money and
morons running your
"business" with a uniform ....

Allan Farr <_afarr@...
(mailto:afarr@...) > wrote: Has anyone
seen this?

_http://www.avweb.http://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.ahttp://wwwhttp:/_

(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/719-full.html#193218)

I find it sickening.
Allan F.
Q2






Same thing that happened to a lot of military birds.
Like the Northrop
flying wings and hundreds of P 51's

It is not unique to the military Beach is buying
back and cutting up all the
Starships they can.

Regards,

Charlie


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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Normal government activity, nobody knows how or cares to make money. Also the stupid mention of the liability issue is BS, ever try sueing the government.

My thought, if sued I shoot the lawyer first then the sueing party. Hopefully with one bullet for economic reasons.
If I am going to be financially screwed then I'll let the tax payers pay>$50,000 a year for my upkeep (in jail), while I have FREE cable tv, FREE health care, FREE legal assistance, etc. and the the suers are enjoying a dirt nap.

Jack

At 04:25 PM 9/18/2006, you wrote:

that's what happens when you have to much money and morons running your "business" with a uniform ....

I seriously doubt that the morons making the decisions were uniformed personnel.


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

that's what happens when you have to much money and morons running your "business" with a uniform ....

Allan Farr <afarr@...> wrote: Has anyone seen this? http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/719-full.html#193218
I find it sickening.
Allan F.
Q2








---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

Jim:

I took careful note of Mark's VG arrangement, but saw no VGs in close
proximity to the upper aft inboard canard region. The implication was that there
were some special placements of VGs in that area to keep the air attached.

I too have a very streamlined oil tank. It even has a place to store the
carburetor.;)

Phil

Has anyone seen this? http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/719-full.html#193218
I find it sickening.
Allan F.
Q2

Kevin,

Howdy dude! Flying around the San Joaquin Valley I've had my plane
loaded with bugs (heavy all over canard and wings) and noticed no
change. Don't think that caused your problem but who knows.

Jim P.

Thanks for the Sho Bloom. Its starting to work wonders on my horses!

--- In Q-LIST@..., Boddicker <trumanst@...> wrote:

7 Sept 06
Again worked on descents. TO from 35 was fine. I think the tires

have a

higher profile than the old ones. I need more ground speed to TO

than before

I changed the tires. At first I thought it was my complacency, but

now have

enough TO¹s to think that the ground angle of attack has changed

for the

worse. Nothing dangerous, just different. The engine has started

to loosen

up some also. I now get 2550RPM on TO roll and 2450 to 2500 in

climb. 360°

descents, 100 MPH at idle, the first 180 ° was down 1000¹ the next

180° was

down 700¹. For a total for 1700¹ descent in the full turn. Thought

it was

odd to have different rates in the same test. Next test was 2000¹

descent at

idle, with 110MPH. Glide was 3.5 miles.
Return to the airport for landing, uneventful.

14 Sept 06
Continued the descent tests. TO from 17 with a 10 MPH headwind

felt better

than the calm wind TO¹s I have been doing. Climb to 5000¹, without

leveling

off part way up to cool the engine, was fine. The temps were

normal for this

plane. First descent yielded a glide of 2.5 miles, engine at idle,

down

2000¹, @ 115 mph. Next try was engine idle, down 1000¹ @ 120 mph,

1mile.

Flew around some at 5000¹. Had a strange experience. To maintain

altitude, I

had to have the nose high. More so than I have ever noticed. The

plane did

not want to trim very well either. Back to the pattern for

landing. Decided

to try to slow my approach to 90 mph for final. Short final found

me very

low, and almost in the corn. Had I continued I don¹t think I would

have made

the runway. Went around. Next approach was at 100 mph. More like

normal. At

least normal to me. Did a T&G. Next landing was at 100 mph on

final as well.

Decent landing. When I got back to the hanger I had a huge amount

of bugs on

the plane. More so than I have ever seen. I talked with Terry C.

about the

possibility that the bugs could have spoiled some of the lift on

the wings.

He said that his LS1 has not had a bug problem, but any

contamination on the

wings will decrease performance. I cleaned them off, and will know

the next

flight if they were the cause. If I don¹t gather them on TO.

Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B 31.4 hours
Flying!!!!

In a message dated 9/18/2006 5:31:27 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
fifty101fifty@... writes:




that's what happens when you have to much money and morons running your
"business" with a uniform ....

Allan Farr <_afarr@... (mailto:afarr@...) > wrote: Has anyone
seen this?
_http://www.avweb.http://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.ahttp://wwwhttp:/_ (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/719-full.html#193218)
I find it sickening.
Allan F.
Q2






Same thing that happened to a lot of military birds. Like the Northrop
flying wings and hundreds of P 51's

It is not unique to the military Beach is buying back and cutting up all the
Starships they can.

Regards,

Charlie

--- Boddicker <trumanst@...> wrote:

7 Sept 06
Again worked on descents. TO from 35 was fine. I
think the tires have a
higher profile than the old ones. I need more ground
speed to TO than before
I changed the tires. At first I thought it was my
complacency, but now have
enough TOs to think that the ground angle of attack
has changed for the
worse. Nothing dangerous, just different. The engine
has started to loosen
up some also. I now get 2550RPM on TO roll and 2450
to 2500 in climb. 360
descents, 100 MPH at idle, the first 180 was down
1000 the next 180 was
down 700. For a total for 1700 descent in the full
turn. Thought it was
odd to have different rates in the same test. Next
test was 2000 descent at
idle, with 110MPH. Glide was 3.5 miles.
Return to the airport for landing, uneventful.

14 Sept 06
Continued the descent tests. TO from 17 with a 10
MPH headwind felt better
than the calm wind TOs I have been doing. Climb to
5000, without leveling
off part way up to cool the engine, was fine. The
temps were normal for this
plane. First descent yielded a glide of 2.5 miles,
engine at idle, down
2000, @ 115 mph. Next try was engine idle, down
1000 @ 120 mph, 1mile.
Flew around some at 5000. Had a strange experience.
To maintain altitude, I
had to have the nose high. More so than I have ever
noticed. The plane did
not want to trim very well either. Back to the
pattern for landing. Decided
to try to slow my approach to 90 mph for final.
Short final found me very
low, and almost in the corn. Had I continued I dont
think I would have made
the runway. Went around. Next approach was at 100
mph. More like normal. At
least normal to me. Did a T&G. Next landing was at
100 mph on final as well.
Decent landing. When I got back to the hanger I had
a huge amount of bugs on
the plane. More so than I have ever seen. I talked
with Terry C. about the
possibility that the bugs could have spoiled some of
the lift on the wings.
He said that his LS1 has not had a bug problem, but
any contamination on the
wings will decrease performance. I cleaned them off,
and will know the next
flight if they were the cause. If I dont gather
them on TO.

Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B 31.4 hours
Flying!!!!

WAY TO GO KEVIN

Are you going to make it to the fly-in with your
plane.
Jerry

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

That sounds good Larry but did you look at the actual facts with the
pix of my canard flow test this weekend.

No, I need to do it.

That may shoot your theory
all to hell. The main wing is next. What are you doing to promote
the species?

Everything I can.

Are you in the air still?

Well. I haven't flown since 6/6 because of an apparent engine overtemp situation. After spending time building a bigger plenum, I found that the problem was in my engine monitoring system. I was going to fly Thursday, but low ceilings and drizzle killed that. Tomorrow, I hope. I need to fly a lot. SOON!


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

7 Sept 06
Again worked on descents. TO from 35 was fine. I think the tires have a
higher profile than the old ones. I need more ground speed to TO than before
I changed the tires. At first I thought it was my complacency, but now have
enough TO¹s to think that the ground angle of attack has changed for the
worse. Nothing dangerous, just different. The engine has started to loosen
up some also. I now get 2550RPM on TO roll and 2450 to 2500 in climb. 360°
descents, 100 MPH at idle, the first 180 ° was down 1000¹ the next 180° was
down 700¹. For a total for 1700¹ descent in the full turn. Thought it was
odd to have different rates in the same test. Next test was 2000¹ descent at
idle, with 110MPH. Glide was 3.5 miles.
Return to the airport for landing, uneventful.

14 Sept 06
Continued the descent tests. TO from 17 with a 10 MPH headwind felt better
than the calm wind TO¹s I have been doing. Climb to 5000¹, without leveling
off part way up to cool the engine, was fine. The temps were normal for this
plane. First descent yielded a glide of 2.5 miles, engine at idle, down
2000¹, @ 115 mph. Next try was engine idle, down 1000¹ @ 120 mph, 1mile.
Flew around some at 5000¹. Had a strange experience. To maintain altitude, I
had to have the nose high. More so than I have ever noticed. The plane did
not want to trim very well either. Back to the pattern for landing. Decided
to try to slow my approach to 90 mph for final. Short final found me very
low, and almost in the corn. Had I continued I don¹t think I would have made
the runway. Went around. Next approach was at 100 mph. More like normal. At
least normal to me. Did a T&G. Next landing was at 100 mph on final as well.
Decent landing. When I got back to the hanger I had a huge amount of bugs on
the plane. More so than I have ever seen. I talked with Terry C. about the
possibility that the bugs could have spoiled some of the lift on the wings.
He said that his LS1 has not had a bug problem, but any contamination on the
wings will decrease performance. I cleaned them off, and will know the next
flight if they were the cause. If I don¹t gather them on TO.

Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B 31.4 hours
Flying!!!!

In a message dated 9/17/2006 9:19:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
spudspornitz@... writes:

You last minute Louie's, you are
more than welcome to attend, right up to the last moment, if you are
coming, just let me know as I have to give the caterer a number
Thursday morning. No will got hungry!



No will got hungry!!!!

Yu shore yew aint oneuhdem undocumented Spanishers?? Hee heee heeee

That sounds good Larry but did you look at the actual facts with the
pix of my canard flow test this weekend. That may shoot your theory
all to hell. The main wing is next. What are you doing to promote
the species? Are you in the air still?

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200


--- In Q-LIST@..., larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:

Golly Jim! Is Mark another 4 mph faster? Are there any pictures

of Mark's

VG set-up in the files yet? Great work, Mark!

Any join of surfaces greater than 45 degrees should be contoured
(beer can fillet) for minimum drag. I have not seen (noticed) any
that have such a fillet below the main wing on Qs.


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