Date   

Re: Discussing new locations TW annual fly-in (Roger that, JIM)

Jim Patillo
 

Phil,

Your mama didn't raise no dummy! That is an excellent idea! How to
implement? hmmmmmmmmm.

Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@..., britmcman@... wrote:

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


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


Re: Lay up sched?

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Mike my plans say that also but we set up the joined spars with the upper
spar cap glassed in, the spars were attached temporarily by glass to the
jigging templates. Then the foam core sections were offered up to the spar
trial fit at first dry. It is important to know that the spars will be a
tight fit in the cores and care is needed to use WET micro slurry and be
sure to bed each core fully, otherwise the spar will be exposed when you
sand off the excess core joggle then spoiling the airfoil shape. My original
canard suffered this problem which was corrected by additional filler.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Perry
Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 3:31 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?



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>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: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> 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>shoskins@mchsi.
<mailto:shoskins%40mchsi.com> 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.
<http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>
blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>http://samhoskins.
<http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>
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]


Re: Lay up sched?

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

David,

I will get it scanned. Correction.. there are 8 pages of sketches and 2
pages of text.



Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 4:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



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

-----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 Peter Harris
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

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


Re: Completion - of a different kind

Rene Robertson <q2robertson@...>
 

Thanks Dave,
It's been a journey to get the car on the road. Typically when the airplane needed attention I would leave the car alone, you know priorities - #1 flying everything else second :)
Rene
Q2 C-FBWV

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Richardson <dave@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2006 8:51:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Completion - of a different kind

Wow! That is beautiful. Great job. How in the world do you find the
time for two major hobbies?

I can't wait to see the foam hat design you come up with for your Laser.
;-) Bet it will be black!

Dave Richardson

Ex-TR-3 restorer/driver

MG-Midget in the garage now awaiting some attention

_____

From: Rene Robertson [mailto:q2robertson@ yahoo.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Completion - of a different kind

Hi Guys,
I know this isn't Q related, but I just completed a 4 year rebuild of my
Laser 917 - a replica of the famous Porsche 917K 24 hour Lemans winner
in 1969, 1970 and 1971. It passed the government safety inspection last
Monday and is fully licenced for the road. I have been getting a lot of
attention with it everywhere I drive it - almost like flying the the Q2
:) The Q2 and the car have lot in common, both have fiberglass bodies,
are low, fast, VW derivative powered, and look super cool. You can see
me and the car at:

www.laser917. com

Cheers
Rene
Q2 C-FBWV


6-Pack Workshop

britmcman99
 

Hello Jim:

Would building/constructing some detail parts of the 6-Pack mods be a
reasonable 1-2 hour activity for those attending a fly-in? Do you think any part of
the work involved could be taught, embarked upon within a reasonable time
frame?

Some courses could be "build your own..." oriented while others could be
"How to ..." oriented.

How about defining scope of work, materials needed, tools needed, activities
that could be accomplished (at least started) during the workshop time. I
work at a machine shop and could probably donate some time/materials, etc.
For example, I could provide some aluminum stock EDM cutouts for various
projects. Easy but labor intensive with an emphasis of skill building jobs could
be reserved for the workshop time. Uniformly cut foam blocks, bolt and nut
hardware, fabric and epoxy, etc. could be provided at cost to the
participants. Workshop activities could include drill, deburr, polish, alodine,
assemble, epoxy lay-up, cable assembly, rigging, etc.

Some of the workshop activities could be training oriented but materials
would be sacrificial. Folks could learn something to apply back home on their
own bird but not have anything physical to have to take home with them except
their experience and some study papers.

The tasks could be divided up into construction Tiger Teams - two or three
builders working on brake mod parts; two or three builders working on tailwheel
rigging and bellcrank parts, etc. The work would have to be layed out so
everybody gets to participate and accomplishing something - more "following the
rules" than "decision-making". People could still get a chance to get to
know people in their group during the exercise.

Once a bill of materials was decided, a number of kits could be made up and
used at the workshop. Extra or left over sets could be made available to
those who might not be able to attend the event.

The workshop course outline/guidelines and bill of materials could be
shipped out to the other major Quickie fly-ins and hosted at those events also.
Numerous people might be able to participate in some small part in a
cooperative way.

Phil


Re: Discussing new locations TW annual fly-in (Roger that, JIM)

Larry Severson
 

To get more participation, this is a winner!

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



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


Re: 2007 FOD TW Fly-In

Letempt, Jeffrey MR <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

Kevin,



Now that I look at the sectional, it is very close to Des Moines. It still
meets my initial criteria in that it is an uncontrolled airport clear of
Class B airspace. It is under a 2000 Class C veil and might be a little
busy. Maybe the criteria should say...."should" be an uncontrolled airport
that "must" be well clear of Class B and C airspace??



Jeff

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Boddicker
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] 2008 FOD TW Fly-In



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!!!!


Re: SERFI

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

Thats a good one also. Darn, wish I knew about it a few weeks ago!
http://www.serfi.org/
We need to show up with our Q's at more of these local flyins.
Mike Q200 N3QP http://www.geocities.com/fly-home/

rdixon wrote:

Anyone going to Southeastern Regional Fly In this weekend?




Re: Discussing new locations TW annual fly-in (Roger that, JIM)

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

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.
It's what you are willing to make it.

When the event moved from Tucson to Laughlin the only person willing to
present a forum was me. All I have to bring to the table is engine stuff so
for 3-4 consecutive years in a row, it was me and my little Corvair engine
forum. One year I brought a video of the unveiling of SpaceShipOne and that
was a hit, but again, the dog-and-pony show was seemingly on my shoulders.

One year while at LVK I asked Don what he thought of me expanding the forums
to include more engine stuff and incorporating my goal of creating an event
for all experimental aircraft, especially since the EAA seems to want to be
distanced from the first E in their name. He thought it was a great idea.

The next three years in a row I brought in a multitude of speakers,
including Klaus Savier, Joe Horvath, Scott Casler, and Paul Lipps. With rare
exception, each speaker that joined our merry band of tandem wingers brought
something useful to the group. Engine stuff yes, but engines for Q's and
DF's for the most part.

If there is something missing from the TANDEM WING event that's now found a
home in Jean NV, something that would make it feel like it's no longer a
tandem wing event, either let me know or step up and provide it. It's not
like I'd be offended by help.

Consider that for umpteen years the media has pretty much refused to cover
the FOD and/or other events we have, but this year's Jean event netted an
article on the Q which appeared in KITPLANES Magazine. Not too shabby for an
event which "not a Tandem Wing event any longer".

Pat


brakes

Larry Severson
 

Are the parts list/source and instructions for installing the floating Airheart brakes available anywhere? I have the pictures, but haven't figured exactly how they go together effectively.

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


Re: Lay up sched?

Jim Patillo
 

Sam,

I'm sure Jason Muscat is quite talanted and a very capable fella. What
he's already done with his Q website is helpful. That's wasn't my
point. Jason any contribution you make is welcomed and greatly
appreciated.

Jim P.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...> 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@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
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.








Re: Comittment!

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

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.
I think that's an awesome idea.

We tried it a small bit of this few times at the Field of Dreams fly-in but
for the most part, the fly-ins are usually more about the social aspect of
our sport and a lot of people attend to hang out and relax, not wrench.

Something as hard-core (and I mean that in a GOOD way) as what's being
proposed should probably take place at a dedicated event, one where giving
rides, displaying for a photo shoot, introducing people to the planes in
general, as well as having some sort of dinner event, is not the focus.

This weekend at the Cloverdale CA airport, a group of 601 builders will be
getting together and witnessing (as well as participating in) an engine
installation. I'm sure there will be some socializing and camaraderie, but
it won't be the focus of the gathering like it was a few months back when
they had a similar, non nuts-and-bolts event.

Ideally the proposed event should happen at LVK, the Mecca of all things Q,
but it should be at a different time than the annual summer event.

My 2¢

Pat (Count me as being 100% onboard for any such endeavor)


Re: Completion - of a different kind

Dave Richardson <dave@...>
 

Wow! That is beautiful. Great job. How in the world do you find the
time for two major hobbies?



I can't wait to see the foam hat design you come up with for your Laser.
;-) Bet it will be black!



Dave Richardson

Ex-TR-3 restorer/driver

MG-Midget in the garage now awaiting some attention





_____

From: Rene Robertson [mailto:q2robertson@...]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Completion - of a different kind



Hi Guys,
I know this isn't Q related, but I just completed a 4 year rebuild of my
Laser 917 - a replica of the famous Porsche 917K 24 hour Lemans winner
in 1969, 1970 and 1971. It passed the government safety inspection last
Monday and is fully licenced for the road. I have been getting a lot of
attention with it everywhere I drive it - almost like flying the the Q2
:) The Q2 and the car have lot in common, both have fiberglass bodies,
are low, fast, VW derivative powered, and look super cool. You can see
me and the car at:

www.laser917.com

Cheers
Rene
Q2 C-FBWV


Completion - of a different kind

Rene Robertson <q2robertson@...>
 

Hi Guys,
I know this isn't Q related, but I just completed a 4 year rebuild of my Laser 917 - a replica of the famous Porsche 917K 24 hour Lemans winner in 1969, 1970 and 1971. It passed the government safety inspection last Monday and is fully licenced for the road. I have been getting a lot of attention with it everywhere I drive it - almost like flying the the Q2 :) The Q2 and the car have lot in common, both have fiberglass bodies, are low, fast, VW derivative powered, and look super cool. You can see me and the car at:

www.laser917.com

Cheers
Rene
Q2 C-FBWV


Re: Discussing new locations TW annual fly-in (Roger that, JIM)

britmcman99
 

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


Re: 2007 FOD TW Fly-In

Letempt, Jeffrey MR <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

Mr. Masal sir,



Maybe we could raffle off a Quickie or Dragonfly project that needs to be
finished? Anyone have one to donate to the cause? If a Quickie only takes
like 600 hours to complete; with 60 people working on it we could have it
done it 1 day :<)) That would be incentive for more people to show up I
bet.



Those are the 3 people that I knew for sure flew in commercially.



Jeff

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
JMasal@...
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:51 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] 2008 FOD TW Fly-In



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

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

j.




.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2124158/grpspId=1600065618/msgId
=26405/stime=1160142958/nc1=3848644/nc2=3848528/nc3=3>


SERFI

rdixon <rdixon@...>
 

Anyone going to Southeastern Regional Fly In this weekend?


Re: taxi test exit criteria

Dave Dugas
 

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@...> 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]


Re: taxi test exit criteria

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

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

----- Original Message -----
From: wesisberg
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] taxi test exit criteria


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


Re: Lay up sched?

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

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

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?


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: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
> On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> 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 <shoskins@...> 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