Hi Wes,
It sounds like your Q is very close to lifting off. It will take off in a three point attitude if you are close to feeling the canard getting light. Once in the air, resist the urge to over control the pitch, its more pressure on the stick rather than moving the stick. Do you have a Revmaster or an O200? DaveDugas

wesisberg <wes@california.com> wrote:
Hi -

(Ok, third message to the group today - and sorry about the fionapple
alias)

What exactly should I find before calling taxi testing successful? I
hope to be able to finish in a week or two (having done about ten
hours in the last two months).

Under optimum conditions (reflexor full aft, mid-CG) I'm able to
maintain reasonable control using tailwheel, brakes, and/or ailerons
up to 65 mph ground and air speed (not yet testing past that pending
more serious first-flight prep). But how far should I go in testing
further configurations or speeds?

E.g., Brian Martinez wrote that his tailwheel stayed down at 60 mph
with neutral reflexor. Should I expect that? How about when I'm at
the forward CG range? What crosswind component should I try?
Obviously there are a number of parameters:

- ground speed, air speed, crosswind speed
- weight, CG, reflexor
- power and brakes, abruptness of application

I'd like to target any condition I'm likely to find myself in and any
situation where folks have found unanticipated behavior in their
planes. I think that includes an 8-knot crosswind, tanks close to
empty (light, forward CG), little to no headwind (i.e., fastest ground
speed), and fully loaded with little headwind (i.e., more mass to push
the wheels around). Does that cover things?

I'm also interested in targetted tests. E.g., for the reflexor I'm
considering taxiing with forward CG and the reflexor forward,
increasing speed very gradually just to the point where the tail/plane
gets light, to find out the actual difference in lift and tailwheel
purchase due to the reflexor. (Same for neutral reflexor.) For
aborts/go-around's, I've been doing abrupt power tests to see how the
plane responds. I've also tested some high-speed turns to find out
how much energy I can expect to lose and whether there are any
gotcha's. Does anyone test for oscillations? There's enough of a
bump in the runway to induce oscillation; should I avoid or try that?
(I've staticly tested the wheel alignment change when bouncing but
need to redo that under load.) It might help to know that my plane is
relatively light and has upswept main wingtips. I'm pretty sure it
would nose over if I went full power with forward CG at run-up. I
plan a series of nose-over tests at various weights once I get someone
to hold down the tail for me.

Obviously I'll prepare for, and plan to avoid, inadvertent first flight.

Thanks -
Wes






---------------------------------
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]

Wes - IMHI - I think you should taxi test the way you would for your first flight. I mean set your reflexor & CG the way you plan to for your first flight. I believe what you should do is give yourself confidence in your abilities to fly this aircraft. One set up is fine for this. Practice so you will be successful for one set of conditions. You can expand the window later. In your mind you have read and heard a lot of things about how this aircraft handles, but until you have done it, they are other peoples experiences. I picked "perfect days" to taxi and fly my first few flights in order to gain confidence in my abilities to fly the airplane. Once this became "somewhat mondane" I then opened up the window on some of the items you mentioned. I'm still not done as I opened the window a little to far on my last flight!

Taxi till it is boring and then taxi some more. (where did I hear this from) Then you will be ready. Then pick a calm day and go fly!

You are lucky to have Q flyers around you to help. Do what they say!

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

I sure like the way you explain things David! Glad you're out there.

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

Maybe, Jeff, we should raffle off a car to get more people to come.

Masal, Thayer and Kittle flew commercially. Wuz dat all?

j.

Peter,

From your description this sounds similar to but different from what I have.
Could you send me a quick low-resolution black-and-white scan of these
documents so that I can compare with what I have? If different, I'd then ask
you for better scans....

Thank you,


David J. Gall

Test

Pretty frustrated with Yahoo Groups -- I can accept that the "bold"
parameter was stripped out -- even if it leaves me looking stupid with my
"(emphasis added)" comment. But why can't I format my paragraphs with
{tab} OR with spaces? The ONLY acceptable format to Yahoo groups appears
to be fixed right, double return between paragraphs. How is this supposed
to be better than the Z-80 and CPM?

Mike Perry

At 10:30 PM 10/5/2006 -0700, you wrote:

FWIW:
Dave is right, most flying planes were just "built to plans" and
flew OK -- actually, most flew great, it was the landing . . . -- anyway,
most flew great based on the plans .
However, MY plans, "Construction of LS(1) 0417 Mod Canard" (page
1) clearly state: "Trial fit both spars at trailing edges . . . Some custom
fitting will likely be required @ B.L. '0-0'. Note, 3.5 deg + sweep aft of
spars at outboard tips." (emphasis added)
Note well: this is the sweep of the SPAR in the jigging templates,
not the sweep of the canard, but that is the sweep of 3.5 deg. occasionally
noted in this discussion.
Also: I am more aware of this than anyone as the ¿Proud? owner of
a canard built with the spar straight :-(

Mike Perry

At 09:50 PM 10/5/2006 -0700, Dave Gall wrote:

Jason,

Due to dihedral, the measurement of sweep is not as straightforward as it
may at first appear. The plans don't say anything about sweep, they only say
to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line. If
you do this, you then end up building the canard with the correct sweep.
What is the true sweep of the canard? NOBODY knows. Nobody CARES ('cept you
and me). What they do care about is that the canard was built "correctly."
If you look at the three-view of the airplane you will see that the trailing
edge of the canard is a straight line from tip to tip. THAT is the real
sweep of the canard, and I'd bet $100 that the designers themselves didn't
know what the true sweep of the quarter chord line of the canard is....

Now, two guys going out to the hangar to measure the sweep on Sam Hoskins'
plane (for example) will probably come back with two different measurements,
partly because one might forget to level the plane first and partly because
they might pick different places to take their measurements. For instance,
do you measure the sweep from the centerline or from the wing root, and do
you extrapolate the leading edge sweep into the fuselage cavity or just
assume a constant chord for that portion of the wing embedded in the
fuselage. These and other considerations make it VERY difficult to assign a
particular number to the sweep of such a flying surface and to be able to
definitively defend that number as THE correct number against all other
contenders.

Better to just eschew such "hard numbers" as too hard to bother with. The
"hard numbers" you really want are those that will allow you to BUILD the
plane. The plans' scheme of level lines and reference marks allow that
without all the hullabaloo about imaginary engineering references. And if
you're worried about modeling the thing for X-Plane, keep in mind that the
great analog computer in the sky is a much better wind tunnel than any
computer will ever be.

David J. Gall
BSAE TBP
P.S. The answer to your question is to believe the plans. The guy with the
mill and thousands of hours in type isn't "wrong," just irrelevant. Like the
trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

-----Original Message-----
From:

<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
To:

<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?

Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point
well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing
sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in
type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry
to offend you.

Sam Hoskins

<<mailto:shoskins%40mchsi.com><mailto:shoskins%40mchsi.com>shoskins@mchsi.com>
wrote:

Hold on

there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a
true representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down
his building time, but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

<<http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam

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

----------



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

FWIW:
Dave is right, most flying planes were just "built to plans" and
flew OK -- actually, most flew great, it was the landing . . . -- anyway,
most flew great based on the plans .
However, MY plans, "Construction of LS(1) 0417 Mod Canard" (page
1) clearly state: "Trial fit both spars at trailing edges . . . Some custom
fitting will likely be required @ B.L. '0-0'. Note, 3.5 deg + sweep aft of
spars at outboard tips." (emphasis added)
Note well: this is the sweep of the SPAR in the jigging templates,
not the sweep of the canard, but that is the sweep of 3.5 deg. occasionally
noted in this discussion.
Also: I am more aware of this than anyone as the ¿Proud? owner of
a canard built with the spar straight :-(

Mike Perry

Jason,

Due to dihedral, the measurement of sweep is not as straightforward as it
may at first appear. The plans don't say anything about sweep, they only say
to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line. If
you do this, you then end up building the canard with the correct sweep.
What is the true sweep of the canard? NOBODY knows. Nobody CARES ('cept you
and me). What they do care about is that the canard was built "correctly."
If you look at the three-view of the airplane you will see that the trailing
edge of the canard is a straight line from tip to tip. THAT is the real
sweep of the canard, and I'd bet $100 that the designers themselves didn't
know what the true sweep of the quarter chord line of the canard is....

Now, two guys going out to the hangar to measure the sweep on Sam Hoskins'
plane (for example) will probably come back with two different measurements,
partly because one might forget to level the plane first and partly because
they might pick different places to take their measurements. For instance,
do you measure the sweep from the centerline or from the wing root, and do
you extrapolate the leading edge sweep into the fuselage cavity or just
assume a constant chord for that portion of the wing embedded in the
fuselage. These and other considerations make it VERY difficult to assign a
particular number to the sweep of such a flying surface and to be able to
definitively defend that number as THE correct number against all other
contenders.

Better to just eschew such "hard numbers" as too hard to bother with. The
"hard numbers" you really want are those that will allow you to BUILD the
plane. The plans' scheme of level lines and reference marks allow that
without all the hullabaloo about imaginary engineering references. And if
you're worried about modeling the thing for X-Plane, keep in mind that the
great analog computer in the sky is a much better wind tunnel than any
computer will ever be.


David J. Gall
BSAE TBP
P.S. The answer to your question is to believe the plans. The guy with the
mill and thousands of hours in type isn't "wrong," just irrelevant. Like the
trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

Hi -

(Ok, third message to the group today - and sorry about the fionapple
alias)

What exactly should I find before calling taxi testing successful? I
hope to be able to finish in a week or two (having done about ten
hours in the last two months).

Under optimum conditions (reflexor full aft, mid-CG) I'm able to
maintain reasonable control using tailwheel, brakes, and/or ailerons
up to 65 mph ground and air speed (not yet testing past that pending
more serious first-flight prep). But how far should I go in testing
further configurations or speeds?

E.g., Brian Martinez wrote that his tailwheel stayed down at 60 mph
with neutral reflexor. Should I expect that? How about when I'm at
the forward CG range? What crosswind component should I try?
Obviously there are a number of parameters:

- ground speed, air speed, crosswind speed
- weight, CG, reflexor
- power and brakes, abruptness of application

I'd like to target any condition I'm likely to find myself in and any
situation where folks have found unanticipated behavior in their
planes. I think that includes an 8-knot crosswind, tanks close to
empty (light, forward CG), little to no headwind (i.e., fastest ground
speed), and fully loaded with little headwind (i.e., more mass to push
the wheels around). Does that cover things?

I'm also interested in targetted tests. E.g., for the reflexor I'm
considering taxiing with forward CG and the reflexor forward,
increasing speed very gradually just to the point where the tail/plane
gets light, to find out the actual difference in lift and tailwheel
purchase due to the reflexor. (Same for neutral reflexor.) For
aborts/go-around's, I've been doing abrupt power tests to see how the
plane responds. I've also tested some high-speed turns to find out
how much energy I can expect to lose and whether there are any
gotcha's. Does anyone test for oscillations? There's enough of a
bump in the runway to induce oscillation; should I avoid or try that?
(I've staticly tested the wheel alignment change when bouncing but
need to redo that under load.) It might help to know that my plane is
relatively light and has upswept main wingtips. I'm pretty sure it
would nose over if I went full power with forward CG at run-up. I
plan a series of nose-over tests at various weights once I get someone
to hold down the tail for me.

Obviously I'll prepare for, and plan to avoid, inadvertent first flight.

Thanks -
Wes

Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry to offend you.

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@mchsi.com> wrote: Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a true
representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down his building time,
but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?

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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, 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://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

-----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 Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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.

---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

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

For starters, I'd be happy to do a lot of legwork for the next LVK
fly-in. Sorry I haven't contributed more in the past.

It's hard to measure the value of participation. I doubt anyone
noticed me two years ago at LVK, but the experience certainly sealed
my committment to one of the biggest financial and time sinks I've
had. I think this year Mark King got enough to keep the fire lit even
with young children competing for his time.

One thing I'd like to do at a quickie fly-in is a sort of a
structured, deep inspection of the planes. That would mean checking
all the weights and angles (wings, alignment, engine offset), doing
bounce tests, perhaps setting up planes for videotaped tuft testing;
maybe having a couple extra props on hand or MAP sensors or other
easily-installed upgrades for the performance run; perhaps even having
a contest of sorts, where other people check out my plane and find
squawks, esp. those I didn't know I had and didn't know to ask. The
goal is to build tools and techniques for evaluation, to get the
benefits of lots of eyeballs, to know how exactly your plane differs
from others, and to get builders to look ahead to the end result in
some detail. I think it's a way to drive technical discussions from
fantasy into practice and make it clear what's the state of the art,
so it should attract all experience levels without committing to a
seminar's constrained audience/presentation format and narrow subjects.

Wes

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

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

No install yet, but thanks for the tips (the threaded-rod hole size
probably provides all the necessary play). I'm not convinced I have a
problem with braking any more; I'm generally within 3-5' of centerline
on braking even at 65 mph. I did have a couple instances on abrupt
deceleration that felt like tailwheel floating. I installed a video
system and control display to debug that, but I haven't been able to
reproduce it with the cameras rolling. Maybe I need to stick Jim's
cracked taxi prop back on :)

Wes

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...> wrote:

Wes, you can use coke can aluminum for shim material. I think I recall
opening up the through hole in the threaded rod one letter-drill

size. It

needs to be free as it slides.

How is the installation progressing?

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On

Behalf Of

wesisberg
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:26 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: coughlin brake mount



That does help, Sam, esp. mounting instructions.

Not sure how I can better describe my concern in words. Let's say the
mount is an uppercase "L" where the bottom part of the L is clamping
to the rotor which is spinning at 5,000 RPM (90mph) with a run-out of
.03". Then the top of the L will be wagging at the same speed and, if
the ratio top:bottom is 2:1, an amplitude of .06". However, the slide
only permits movement along the top axis (i.e., L jumping up and down,
not teetering side-to-side). Nor am I sure the thing will loosen or
wear visibly before breaking, so I'd at least have some notice during
preflight.

Agreed that I should avoid the issue by removing run-out, but the
rotor is new and that's as close as I could get; maybe I should get
finer shims.

Thanks -
Wes

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Sam
Hoskins" <shoskins@> wrote:

Wes, I'm not clear on what you are saying here. Is it the fact

that the

disc is not flat that is causing concern, or that it is off-center

of the

center point of the axle?

If the disc is not flat, yes it should be shimmed as much as flat

as you

can. However, the slide feature of the mount makes that condition

a lot

more tolerable than the other mounts. That's why I like it. 0.030"
shouldn't be a problem.

Here is how I got the best alignment between the mount and the wheel:

Install everything, but don't yet drill the brake mounting holes

into the

wheel pant.

Now, pull the brake handle and lock the caliper onto the disk. This

will

cause the caliper to align itself with the wheel.

Next, stuff the void between the brake mounting plate and the

wheel pant

with flox. Voila! Perfect alignment. Don't drill the holes until

you have

verified everything is to your satisfaction.

I just uploaded another photo to my Q-List folder. This link may work:
http://ph.groups.

<http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos/browse/b877>
yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos/browse/b877

You want to make sure the through hole in the threaded rod gives

enough

clearance and the threaded rod doesn't need to be too long. Maybe

1 ¼"?

Does this help?

Sam

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com

[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On
Behalf Of

wesisberg
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:21 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] coughlin brake mount - too rigid?



I have the Coughlin brake mount parts (thanks Jon and Sam and ...) but
noticed (late) that it permits only movement parallel to the disk
rotor. My rotor has some run-out (down to about .03" after
reshimming, still noticable) which it seems to me would cause chafing
on the slide if not significant vibration where the mount attaches to
the wheelpant. By contrast, my mount (see qtalk 1, Peay) permits
about 5 degrees of twist, enough to tolerate a bit of run-out.

So for those who've used the Coughlin mounts, do you have any run-out
that they have to tolerate, and how many landings have you used them?

Thanks -
Wes

Sorry,
That should read Ankeny.
Kevin


on 10/5/06 8:56 PM, Boddicker at trumanst@netins.net wrote:

Jeff,
Anleny IA is where the FSDO lives. Right on the field. We would have to be
on our best behavior!!!!
I don't have an Omaha sectional, but the Des Moines airspace can't be too
far away. Very much an urban area.

Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B

Hey Jeff when I clicked on the URL you sent I was able to get into the
web site but nothing I clicked on worked. I did sign in.
Bruce





________________________________________________________________________
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!

Jeff,
You and Spud have done wonderful jobs with the FOD Events! Thank you
so much! I hope I wasn't negative with any of my comments.
Brainstorming by definition is "all ideas are welcome and should be in
the positive direction. Nothing negative allowed." In asking for
ideas I had hoped to ease the burden of motel rides and cafe proximity.
I think some great ideas have surfaced from some of the "Tandem
Wingers" After Brainstorming perhaps someone should look closer and
decided which ideas are efficacious and which ones are "just wack' my
brotha'" ;o)

I still am stuck on the idea of the weekend before Oshkosh at an
airport that it close enough to Oshkosh field for a one hopper with
plenty of fuel.

You da' bes' my man
Bruski Crain
N96BJ








________________________________________________________________________
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!

Jeff,
Anleny IA is where the FSDO lives. Right on the field. We would have to be
on our best behavior!!!!
I don't have an Omaha sectional, but the Des Moines airspace can't be too
far away. Very much an urban area.

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




on 10/4/06 4:56 PM, Letempt, Jeffrey MR at jeffrey.letempt@us.army.mil
wrote:

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.yahoo.com/group/2006TandemWingFly_In/
<http://groups.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

Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a true
representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down his building time,
but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?




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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, 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://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

-----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 Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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]

Thomasville GA flyin is next weekend. I'm going. It's always a free small scale affair and I recommend it. If your in the South East US, come by! http://www.thomasvilleflyin.com/

FYI, Key West is planned for this weekend. Snorkeling (http://webcam.keywest.com/camimages/sebago_cam.jpg) , Jimmy Buffet's, Sloppy Joe's ...http://webcam.keywest.com/

Come bust the ADIZ with me if you like! It's only 90 miles over the water so check your gas before you turn away from Florida and head out into the Gulf of Mexico!

Mike N3QP

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@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 5:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
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