David,

I have an original copy of the LS1 plans headed "Construction of LS(1) 0417
MOD CANARD, 2 pages of description and pics commencing with "Jigging the
canard" plus 10 pages of drawings by Larry Lombard dated in 1983.. If this
is what you need I could send you a copy if you don't find one closer to
home. Or maybe scan them and send to you. (There are no airfoils included
just hand sketches) There is also a release about mods to the firewall to
beef it up for the 0-200 engine.

Cheers,

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 5:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

Any tandem wings planning to attend Copperstate?

Pat

Bruce,



FWIW, that is my philosophy for how the FOD TW fly-in should be conducted.
I feel that people come to type specific fly-ins to talk to other builders
and look at airplanes. From my perspective a perfect fly-in would be one
where it kicks off at about noon on Friday with forums intended to help the
builder with building his/her airplane. The Friday forum(s) would maybe be
an electrical or composite construction or engines or whatever the current
builders could use to better construct their airplanes. A welcome dinner at
a buffet place or truck stop on Friday evening where the organizer needs no
real hard numbers of money up front would be ideal.



Saturday would kick off with a performance run while it is still cool and
hopefully calm. There would be 2 forums on Saturday; one for the Q's and
one for the Dragonfly's. This would leave lots of time for looking at
airplanes and giving rides. The poker run was a great idea that I would
like to see developed as a means to encourage more flying at the fly-in.
The Saturday awards dinner would be at a restaurant where you could get a
private room and did not need to collect money up front or have real hard
numbers again. I REALLY ENJOYED having the dinner this year at the airport,
but Spud was still forced to collect money up front and provide the caterer
with hard numbers several days before the event. If someone happened to
show up at the last minute, how could you turn them away? You end up having
to add a few extra meals just in case and this increases the cost a little
for everyone. Money is not a significant issue for a fly-in like this; we
always do everything possible to keep the costs as low as possible. If
someone is going to drive or fly 1000 miles to come to the event, a few
extra $ is not a concern. An on-field restaurant large enough to
accommodate the dinner would be great, but they would probably want money up
front and firm numbers.



I am a big fan of the less is more concept. I probably spent 6+ hours
standing at my airplane on Saturday alone answering questions and talking
about how to do things. The Dragonfly forum was a great place for everyone
to get together for an hour or 2, but all the real serious questions were
asked at the airplane looking at pieces parts. The cowling off thing that
several Q guys did in the hangar while the Dragonfly forum was taking place
was GREAT.



Jeff



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
jcrain2@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:02 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Comittment!



Jim,
Your fly in is part of the reason I pursued the "Brainstorming". LVK
is set up so that pilots can get around easily for food and lodging.
The event is pretty laid back and open to pilots and builders going 1
on 1 for info. The size doesn't matter with these 3 attributes. It
can happen with 50 aircraft or 2. You are not strapped to
transportation and catering. I would love to come back out to your
event again sometime. The food was great Sat night by the way!!!
Joanne and I really enjoyed the time spent with you all at LVK.

Bruce Crain




.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2124158/grpspId=1600065618/msgId
=26366/stime=1160013826/nc1=3848644/nc2=3848528/nc3=3>

Ron,



Thanks for the comments.



In my original airport selection criteria email to Doug and Spud I had
reasonable access (within 1 hour drive) from a commercial airport on the
"must have" list. But then I thought about how many people actually flew in
commercially and think there were only 2 or 3 people this year. I would not
want to avoid an otherwise perfect airport just because it was a 2-3 hour
drive from a commercial airport.



I am missing your point about moving this discussion to the TW fly-in email
list. I created the TW fly-in group on Yahoo Groups back in 2003 so we
could discuss TW fly-in specific issues.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TandemWingFly_In/
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TandemWingFly_In/> This is the perfect
list for fly-in planning discussions. There is no spam generated from the
group and no unnecessary chatter. Here is my thought process for discussing
this stuff on the TW fly-in email list. There are over 700 members on the
Dragonfly email list. At the TW fly-in just a few weeks ago there was a
total of maybe 30 Dragonfly enthusiasts, so about 4% of the people on the
Dragonfly email list attended the fly-in. I would love to see a much larger
turnout at the TW FOD fly-in; it takes almost as much work to organize a
fly-in for 5 airplanes and 20 people as it would for 50 airplanes and 200
people. If someone wants to help plan the fly-in that is GREAT!!! Of
course the fly-in will be thoroughly promoted on all the TW email lists.



Jeff



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Ron Triano
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:40 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc: Dragonflylist@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] 2008 FOD TW Fly-In



Jeff, I agree with your must have list for the most part, For those of us
that are on either coast I would like to see it near a large commercial
airport so we can fly in commercially as long as there is a chance of bad
weather. That would help those flying their creations also. I don't think
if it is not exactly in the center makes much difference for those flying
commercially but should be close to the event. These flyin's started with
the Dflys and Qs, If there are some tandum wingers that would like to attend
they should be welcome and leave it at that, why in the world would you want
to move this discussion to their list? They are the visitors. This thing
about a hangar large enough to house all our planes is nice but should not
be priority 1. Priority 1 needs to be a indoor place or hangar we could have
our discussions/or whatever, on field restaurant that will also feed us
individually for the evening feed, I agree with most of the other items on
your list.

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Letempt, Jeffrey MR
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:57 PM
To: TandemWingFly_In (TandemWingFly_
<mailto:TandemWingFly_In%40yahoogroups.com> In@...);
'Q-LIST@yahoogroups <mailto:%27Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> .com';
'Dragonflylist@ <mailto:%27Dragonflylist%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [Q-LIST] 2008 FOD TW Fly-In

TW'ers,

I think there are a lot of great ideas being exchanged on the lists about
the fly-in. Organizing the fly-in takes a lot of effort and although it is
possible to organize the fly-in from a remote location, it is not something
I would highly recommend the first year at a new location. This means that
the fly-in really should be relatively close to the organizer's home. There
are so many variables that can drastically change the event overnight. A
simple fly-in where you can reserve a room at a buffet style restaurant (pay
as you go, no firm numbers needed in advance) for the awards banquet could
be organized remotely, but if you are have to select a caterer and organize
a banquet hall that complicates things. I am a HUGE supporter of moving the
fly-in around once in a while. I am not suggesting that we need to find a
new "perfect" location every year, but I think moving the event a few
hundred miles once in a while has a positive impact.

I appreciate the comments about the smaller TW fly-ins. I seriously doubt
that I will probably ever attempt to fly my VW powered Dragonfly to the west
coast for a weekend fly-in. I really do not enjoy long cross country
flights and my wife does not enjoy flying in my Dragonfly very much. I
totally understand someone not wanting to fly a couple thousand miles in the
TW airplane just to attend a weekend fly-in. Something like the FOD fly-in
where you might have 15-20 TW airplanes is a great opportunity for builders
to see finished flying planes, possibly get an orientation flight, and
certainly a great place to get some terrific ideas. Even if there was no
FOD fly-in in the middle of the US, that would not be justification for me
to attend a TW fly-in on the west coast. If anything I think it would give
me more incentive to attempt a long cross country flight.

I have attended the Illinois TW fly-ins 5 of the last 6 years and was
disappointed a couple times due to the low turnout. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the person organizing the event; Keith, Steve, and Sam
have done a GREAT job organizing these events. I was unable to attend the
Casey fly-in this year because of my mom and dad's 50th wedding anniversary.
I was sad that I missed the event, in fact I had seriously considered still
flying over to Casey but my sisters told me that mom and dad would write me
out of the will if I got weathered in or stuck at Casey due to maintenance
:<))

I understand the concept of having the fly-in just before or after
AirVenture, but I think this could have a negative impact on all but a few
potential long distance travelers. Most of us still have jobs and limited
funds (or we would probably all have Lancairs IVP's). Several of our
attendees volunteer at AirVenture and Sam always participants in the race.
The last 2 years I have just spent the last 3-4 days at AirVenture. Unless
someone planned on spending the whole week at AirVenture I am not sure how
you would schedule the TW fly-in, not to mention what impact this would have
on the organizers. Not everyone attends AirVenture, even if they only live
a couple hundred miles (or less) from OSH.

I understand Jim's frustration about spend lots of time organizing a fly-in
and then no one shows up. It is very stressful spending lots of time (and
money) and committing to contracts only to have the weather keep most of the
people from flying to the event. MOST of the pilots who can not fly-in due
to weather or maintenance would just tell the organizer to keep their
registration fees so the organizer would not take it in the shorts. Of
course most of the people who were going to drive or fly commercially show
up and are disappointed to see only a few TW airplanes. I guess this is the
nature of the beast and of course there is nothing we can do about the
weather.

Me, Doug, and Spud have been talking behind the scenes about next year's
event since a couple days after the fly-in. I proposed 2 sets of criteria
to Doug and Spud a few hours before that was suggested by David on the Q
list (I guess great minds think alike, right David?). In order to select a
fly-in location I think it is important to establish a list of "must have"
and "should have" needs. I will propose a few things to consider:

MUST

o Be generally located in the middle of the USA

o Have a fly-in friendly airport manager (critical to the success of
the fly-in)

o Have 4000' x 75' or larger runway

o Have hangar space for 20 TW airplanes

o Have space to conduct forums

o Have hotels and restaurants reasonably close

o Have reasonable access via automobile (close to interstate highway
preferable)

o Have little or no cost to use the facility

SHOULD

o Have a crosswind runway

o Have parallel taxiways

o Be an uncontrolled airport clear of Class B airspace

o Allow camping at the airport

o Have shower facilities at the airport

o Have reasonable access to a major commercial airport

From looking at the MO airport directory there is a total of ZERO airports

which meet all the "must" and "should" criteria that I listed above, there
are 3 or 4 that get close. There are just not many large airports (2
runways that are 4000x75), out in the country, that are close to a big city,
that do not have a tower, but have lots of hotels close by, that would let
us use their big empty hangars for free....sounds like an impossible airport
to find.

I would be willing to remotely organize the fly-in under the right set of
circumstances, but a couple of organizers splitting responsibilities (and
sharing information) would probably be easier. Having some organizer depth
would certainly be a good thing....what would happen if the only event
organizer were to get sick and not be able to attend? Maybe one person
could handle the registrations and promotions, one person could be the
airport liaison and coordinate for the forum space and hangar space, one
person could handle the awards, one person could handle the awards
dinner....you get my drift, some of the tasks are easy and one person could
do more than one task. Establish one person as the head honcho and split up
the responsibilities. Obviously, it would be helpful if someone local could
handle the airport liaison duties and be the honest broker.

You would never know about the facility unless someone personally talked to
the airport manager/FBO and he/she was fly-in friendly. I spent a couple
hours the other night looking for potential airports and found several that
look pretty good on paper.

Ada, OK - KADH

Beatrice, NE - KBIE

Worthington, MN - KOTG

Mason City, IA - KMCW

Ankeny, IA - KIKV

Fort Dodge, IA - KFOD

Ames, IA - KAMW

Ottumwa, IA - KOTM

Southeast Iowa, Burlington, IA - KBRL

Keokuk, IA - KEOK

Iowa City, IA - KIOW

Muscatine, IA - KMUT

Jonesboro, AR - KJBR

Perry Lefors, Pampa, TX - KPPA

Hutchinson County Airport, Borger, TX - KBGD

Liberal, KS - KLBL

North Platte, NE - KLBF

Plainview, TX - KPVW

Hope, AR - KM18

Stuttgart, AR - KSGT

Conway, AR - KCWS

Coffeyville, KS - KCFV

El Dorado, KS - KEQA

Man they have some nice airports in IA!! I have created an Excel
spreadsheet that contains basic lodging information (number of hotels,
distance from the airport to the hotels, and basic $ range), distance to
major commercial airport, possible shower facilities, and city population.
Obviously if the "perfect" airport is not there, the "must have" list
criteria will have to be prioritized. It is more important to have a
suitable runway than to be close to a commercial airport. I have not really
looked at IL or WI yet, this is maybe getting on the far edge of the eastern
limit. IMO, the further east and north we go we will have potentially fewer
fly-in participants due to where the flying TW aircraft are generally
located. There are a couple airports that really look PERFECT on paper
(KIKV in particular).

If you have an airport that you think would be a great location for the next
fly-in, please let me know. The airport has to meet the criteria listed on
the "must" list. I recommend that we transfer this discussion to the TW
fly-in list. The TW fly-in list on Yahoo is located at:
http://groups. <http://groups.> <http://groups.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/>
yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/>
yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/
<http://groups. <http://groups.> <http://groups.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/>
yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/>
yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/>

I am looking forward to next years fly-in!!!

Thanks,

Jeff

Dragonfly MK-IIH - N41GK

TW FOD Event Organizer 2003, 2004, 2005

Jason,

Why in the world are you trying to make building this airplane more
difficult or complicated than it has to be. Do you currently own a Q
kit or plane you're rebuilding? Are you starting from scratch? Give
us a little insight. Remember we've only been at this 25 years.

I bought my plans/kit in 1981 like a lot of others, built it per
plan and added the enhancing mods package now commonly known as
the "Jim/Bob Six Pack" (to tame the handling characteristics). Guess
what, IT FLEW FINE! I didn't have do any rework because I
misinterpeted QAC's simplistic plans or didn't understand them. BTW,
this was all done without any internet or support from anyone as the
factory was defunct and dealers weren't that supportive. I didn't
even know Farnam was building his plane 15 miles away. Today you
simply a keystroke away from an answer.

I had no prior building experience and didn't know anything about
glass layups. If you think you're as much an aeronautical engineer
as Bert Rutan or Tom Jewett then by all means create something new,
just don't try calling it a Quickie. If you are serious about this
plane, then get on with it. Help is out here but you won't get any
help from this group comming off as an authority on something you
haven't done. There are already to many of us that have!

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type.


--- In Q-LIST@..., Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
wrote:

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out

your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

>BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need

to know whether

the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans

you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of
people having to cut off there canard because it didn't have the
correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there
canard apart because it didn't have the proper sweep in it, or cut
of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is
every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work?
It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to
fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have
to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled
and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective
this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25" shift of the
canard tips moving the CG .5" as well as changing the weight
distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger
design). Doesn't look like much but if this is the norm (and i am

seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10)

discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change
as much as 2-3". Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued
with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout,
etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack
of "fallowing the plans," but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft
during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of
foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages

that start

with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include

this

document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text

entitled

"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix

sheets. The

Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three

page

document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard."

Note

inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters,

but without

any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available

at

http://QuickieSource.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets

for both

the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them

to their

owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have

all the

other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon

McAtee

has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and

even

correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the

same for

the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars,

but Peter

Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have)

and will

gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to

know whether

the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.

Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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

Ron

I have a 18 HP in it at this time.In my shop i have a 4 cylinder contenental 4 AO4 to rebuild for the q1, that should 37 to 40 HP.
Brakes? I still have the pull on the handle and hope.
I have rewired and installed lights
Back to the engine,I moved the engine forward 1 in. By doing this I put te exhaust down the back of engine and out under the plane. Next I cut a hole 3 in by 12 in in the bottem of lower coweling. Then I cut a 3 in cut forward in the cowling. Then I made a bracket to hold the 3 in split open 1 in at the back of the cowling, that little 1 in peace down in the wind should cause a vacuum to pull the air out of the engine faster.
I also wraped the exhust with anti heat tape. So far in my taxi test my temp is very low, I"ll let you know more as time goes on
Jim

put it back on the groung asap

Jim

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

>BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of people having to cut off there canard because it didn’t have the correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there canard apart because it didn’t have the proper sweep in it, or cut of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work? It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25” shift of the canard tips moving the CG .5” as well as changing the weight distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger design). Doesn’t look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10) discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change as much as 2-3”. Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout, etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack of “fallowing the plans,” but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSource.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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

Hi Terry,
Thanks for being so candid and honest with your experience, it's the only way people will know and
maybe change the way things are done.
That being said you should also realize the amount of work, commitment, planning, and sometimes
begging that an event organizer must go thru year after year to put on something for no pay and
sometimes ridicule. The LVK boys have done these things for our enjoyment, and benefit and for the
desire of bringing together folks they have known for years and may or may not have met. If you're
new to a group of people make it known, people are the same everywhere. The T-18 folks are no
different or maybe they need friends more than Quickie folks (just kidding of course), and yes I
know several T-18 in the NW.
If you're with in the LVK area I'd take JP up on his offer and come again, & givem another try.
Terry, enjoy yourself and welcome to the group.

We need to see the world as it is, not as we see it.
David Hiatt
N3223X
N34DQ
N6725F

From Terry

Jim,
Since you asked ..........
I attended my first LVK a year ago, drove over on Saturday. One Dragonfly was there so I stuck my

head in to look around and get some pictures. The owner introduced himself and took the time to
answer a few of my questions. Then I walked to each of the other Qs and took pictures. Not one Q
driver introduced himself/herself. I took some pictures and left as the call went out for lunch.
Yes, I could've stayed for lunch, and yes I could have been more forward and introduced myself.
Maybe if I had brought my Dragonfly I would have been assimilated into the group.

This year as the date for LVK rolled around, I wasn't even interested in attending.
Last weekend I attended my first Thorp T18 fly-in at Porterville. Eighteen Thorps flew in, locals

plus Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and three from AZ. I knew two people, but nearly
everyone introduced themselves. There was a couple of seminars (short and to the point, legal
stuff, aerobatics, maintenance, mods) and a few info-mercials from guys building parts. I was
impressed. One of the companies supplying T18 parts is based at PTV and hosts the event. As with
the TW group the Thorp group also has an eastern fly-in at Kentucky Dam.

Terry Adams
N41521
N51079

From Jim P.

Jerry hit it on the head regarding our flyins. Having them spread out

does allow more people to participate. The problem as he so acurately
points out is if people don't support them they go away. We've had a
few people attend from the east and we are grateful but mainly wind up
with the regualars from here.

When we started at LVK over six years ago, I had plans to grow our
event with seminars and more events to rival FOD. Bob on the other
hand wanted to keep it more of a meet and greet thing and that is what
its turned into. That's fine but I think the participation level is
dwendling and as a result, we need to give serious consideration as to
whether we have another LVK fly in or not. Any suggestions?

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

Jeff, I agree with your must have list for the most part, For those of us
that are on either coast I would like to see it near a large commercial
airport so we can fly in commercially as long as there is a chance of bad
weather. That would help those flying their creations also. I don't think
if it is not exactly in the center makes much difference for those flying
commercially but should be close to the event. These flyin's started with
the Dflys and Qs, If there are some tandum wingers that would like to attend
they should be welcome and leave it at that, why in the world would you want
to move this discussion to their list? They are the visitors. This thing
about a hangar large enough to house all our planes is nice but should not
be priority 1. Priority 1 needs to be a indoor place or hangar we could have
our discussions/or whatever, on field restaurant that will also feed us
individually for the evening feed, I agree with most of the other items on
your list.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA



Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there

Tad - Keep an eye on the QBA web site under the button called "Events". I usually up date this page at the beginning of the year and as event dates become know. The are usually announced on the lists as well.

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

I might possibly have access to the Q-200 appendix sheets/templates. Let me
check in the next couple of days.

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSource.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!


David J. Gall

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1 but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was never a set of directions to make spars as they were always pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*. Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...> wrote:
Here is the lamination schedule for the LS 1 spar, however you really
really REALLY need the full directions -- mine was done wrong by the first
builder (did not allow 3.5 deg sweep in jigging and canard has to be cut
out, re-jigged, spar cap redone!) So get a copy of the instructions and
study carefully before you start!

The LS1 spar gets
3 ply of BID at 45 deg extending 6" outside the joint (12" total)
then spars caps of UNI:
Bottom: 5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"
Top: 5 ply 20" x 3.5"
5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"

Mike Perry

At 05:36 PM 10/4/2006 +0000, you wrote:

Any one know the lay-up schedule for the Ls1 spar? Not just to join
the two halves but of the spar it self?

---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Terry:

Sorry you had a bad experience at LVK. On the one hand, you could have had
bad luck, or maybe you weren't feeling 100% yourself (that's usually my
wife's comment about me when I say everyone else seemed quiet or
standoffish). On the other hand - - -

Guys, there is a message here. We can't expect the hosts (at LVK Jim and
Bob) to do everything. Everyone needs to pitch in with the chores, but
also with greeting folks and making them feel comfortable. Even if you
don't have a flying plane yet, you can say something to the person you
don't recognize, help them get oriented and feeling part of the group.

My 2 cents --

Mike Perry

I'll second Matoon....great venue.


Steve Ham

Mattoon? Is there an annual event in Mattoon ? That is like only 100 miles away.... Is there a calendar of the annual events ? Anyway to move FOD away from my wedding anniversary ? Sure would love to hit a few of these next year. Is Keith doing Casey again next year ?

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

Here is the lamination schedule for the LS 1 spar, however you really
really REALLY need the full directions -- mine was done wrong by the first
builder (did not allow 3.5 deg sweep in jigging and canard has to be cut
out, re-jigged, spar cap redone!) So get a copy of the instructions and
study carefully before you start!

The LS1 spar gets
3 ply of BID at 45 deg extending 6" outside the joint (12" total)
then spars caps of UNI:
Bottom: 5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"
Top: 5 ply 20" x 3.5"
5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"

Mike Perry

Thanks for the input Terry,

Sorry you had a bad experience at LVK. I thought I talked with anyone
willing. As you know I was pretty busy flying people, sorry I couldn't
have gotten you in the air.

Give it another try!

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200

--- In Q-LIST@..., <terrywadams@...> wrote:

Jim,
Since you asked ..........
I attended my first LVK a year ago, drove over on Saturday. One

Dragonfly was there so I stuck my head in to look around and get some
pictures. The owner introduced himself and took the time to answer a
few of my questions. Then I walked to each of the other Qs and took
pictures. Not one Q driver introduced himself/herself. I took some
pictures and left as the call went out for lunch. Yes, I could've
stayed for lunch, and yes I could have been more forward and
introduced myself. Maybe if I had brought my Dragonfly I would have
been assimilated into the group.

This year as the date for LVK rolled around, I wasn't even

interested in attending.

Last weekend I attended my first Thorp T18 flyin at Porterville.

Eighteen Thorps flew in, locals plus Oregon, Washington, Utah,
Colorado, Nevada, and three from AZ. I knew two people, but nearly
everyone introduced themselves. There was a couple of seminars (short
and to the point, legal stuff, aerobatics, maintenance, mods) and a
few info-mercials from guys building parts. I was impressed. One of
the companies supplying T18 parts is based at PTV and hosts the event.
As with the TW group the Thorp group also has an eastern flyin at
Kentucky Dam.

Terry Adams
N41521
N51079

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Comittment!


Jerry hit it on the head regarding our flyins. Having them spread out
does allow more people to participate. The problem as he so acurately
points out is if people don't support them they go away. We've had a
few people attend from the east and we are grateful but mainly

wind up

with the regualars from here.

When we started at LVK over six years ago, I had plans to grow our
event with seminars and more events to rival FOD. Bob on the other
hand wanted to keep it more of a meet and greet thing and that is

what

its turned into. That's fine but I think the participation level is
dwendling and as a result, we need to give serious consideration

as to

whether we have another LVK fly in or not. Any suggestions?

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200





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

Jim,
Your fly in is part of the reason I pursued the "Brainstorming". LVK
is set up so that pilots can get around easily for food and lodging.
The event is pretty laid back and open to pilots and builders going 1
on 1 for info. The size doesn't matter with these 3 attributes. It
can happen with 50 aircraft or 2. You are not strapped to
transportation and catering. I would love to come back out to your
event again sometime. The food was great Sat night by the way!!!
Joanne and I really enjoyed the time spent with you all at LVK.

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!