Something to incorporate into a Q fly-in -

How about a 6-pack Mods workshop to build the components typically

could then be taken home with the participants to install. Kinda

and crafts but with tangible components to take home and mount

parts, etc.

Phil


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

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

to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line..

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

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

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

trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

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

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

On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.

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>shoskins@mchsi.

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.

Sam

Something to incorporate into a Q fly-in -

How about a 6-pack Mods workshop to build the components typically used that
could then be taken home with the participants to install. Kinda like arts
and crafts but with tangible components to take home and mount up. Brake mod
parts, etc.

Phil

A few thoughts on moving or combining events:

1) The "Mountain States Fly-in" is now an Engine-heads forum. Nothing
wrong with that, but it's not a Tandem Wing event any longer. However,
the
spring timing is great -- no conflicts with other events, and a chance to
get out with our airplane friends after the winter is over.

Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a

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

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@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On

Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
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.

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.