Thanks for that Jim. When you say that you found the single pull

Regards
Allan F

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 15:22
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



Allan,

I bought my Quickie Kit in October 1981 from the factory. It had a
single pull lever that when applied set both brakes. I found this to
be totally unacceptable in any kind of crosswind. I did not like the
idea but toyed with dual finger brakes not near as close to fininshing
as Bob Malachek, Sam Hoskins, Paul Fisher and Tom Moore. So I delayed
finishing the brakes knowing some how I was going to install toe
brakes. Then I met Bob Farnam and he showed me the fix. Bob had
already designed and installed toe brakes so I basically copied his
set up. Our toe brake pedal geometry varied a little but both planes
handled basically the same....................tame. I didn't do
David's alignment becaue the plane was already a "pussycat" . I know
for a fact from Sam and others that the alignment worked wonders on
many planes.

Later Brad Olson, Jeff Rudledge and Mark Summers installed toe brakes
with small variations but basically the same. I can say............
tame my good buddy Sam because it's so.

Now should we collabrate and make a Q that can kick Klaus' ass?

Regards,

JP

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Allan Farr" <afarr@> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim. I understand that originally the Q2 had differential brakes,
& that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning
faulty in your opinion?
> Regards
> Allan Farr
> Q2
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Patillo
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 11:28
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or
> that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better
> idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers?
> Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q
> world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not
> the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger

> modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe

> many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it.
>
> I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do

> three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't
> run across any three handed pilots lately.
>
> If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I
> said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or
> approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first

> He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential
> finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter
> intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left
> to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so
> much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out

> easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly!
>
> I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven

> on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either
> one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the
> runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame?
>
> Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't
> care to express it.
>
> Regards,
>
> JP
>
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@> wrote:
> >
> > You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a
> better
> > idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds
> like
> > Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull
> lever.
> > Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need

> > hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and
> realizes
> > you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane
> to
> > show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
> > getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming
> up
> > with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to
> install
> > the proven six pack.
> >
> > I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to
> first
> > flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
> > argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked
> pretty
> > hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner
> reflexor in a
> > fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result
> and that
> > is what really counts.
> >
> > To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and
> $'s on
> > something that has already been solved and proven to be
> successful? Do
> > what works and go fly your plane.
> >
> > Dave Richardson
> > Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Patillo
> > Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
> > To: Q-LIST@...
> > Cc:
> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

I would like to point out something I think people loose
sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod
allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the
tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the
plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed,
and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The
tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Mike Perry
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:30 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

I would like to point out something I think people loose
sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod
allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the
tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the
plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed,
and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The
tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel.

(You could achieve the same thing using split cables and
changing the lengths of the control horns on the rudder and
tail wheel, but the bell crank is an easy place to change the
relative travel.)

I understand the tail wheels of some WW II fighters had very
little travel, but I can't seem to document that right now.
My opinion is that tail draggers that land at high speeds
need tail wheels that are "desensitized"
with a reduced pivot arc and tail wheel springs.

I understand the Q-2 plans from QAC used a tail wheel with a
wide pivot arc in order to negotiate tighter corners on
airports. This design worked OK on the Quickie, which lands
at a lower speed, but has been problematic on the Q-2 and
Q-200. The 6-Pack has full pivoting tail wheel and
differential brakes to allow you to negotiate tight corners,
and a reduced pivot arc and springs to desensitize the tail
wheel at high speeds.

Jim, I think this is what you meant when you said: "With just
splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate
(detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder." I just
wanted to say it more clearly.

Mike Perry

At 06:33 PM 10/19/2006 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote:

Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info.

Even though

he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway,

I found it

very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight either with
rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind was

about 12K -

10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no bellcrank but has split
the cables internally to rudder and tail wheel and has a

modified dual

differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has

no way to

differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the

rudder. He's

installed a modified dual finger brake that has a single stick that
slides sideways to apply pressure to one master cylinder or

the other

or both. That is not good because its way to sensitive and

hard to get

positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the

brake and not

the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How many
serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or heel
brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail dragger
and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many

things going

on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods

installed are

really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the

life of me

understand why anyone would want to do anything different.

Yet we see

it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very difficult

time handling

their planes initially and often crack them up or have an

incident even

before the first flight. Because you didn't invent it,

doesn't mean you

can't copy it! The situation with Wes; here's a very

intellignet fella

sitting on a field with sucessuful Q's all around, yet he

chooses to do

his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't

have a clear

undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the

middle of

LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a

different route,

what does that tell you about builders working on their own,

isolated

and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so simple

and brace

yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still

smacking up

their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen

who don't

want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.

Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.

Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me a

So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I have no
problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ring

to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or system of
which you can send me plans?

On 10/19/06, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.

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

Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me

So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I

problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ring

to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or

which you can send me plans?

On 10/19/06, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200

before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the

found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My

response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix

problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no

to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way

sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake

not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing!

many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods

are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a

difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack

up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation

Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing.

To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it -

What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the

of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their

isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still

up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen

don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.

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

Hi Jim. I understand that originally the Q2 had differential brakes,

Regards
Allan Farr
Q2

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 11:28
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



Dave,

I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or
that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better
idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers?
Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q
world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not
the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake
modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so
many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it.

I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need
three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't
run across any three handed pilots lately.

If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I
said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or
approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights.
He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential
finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter
intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left
to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so
much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really
easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly!

I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours
on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either
one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the
runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame?

Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't
care to express it.

Regards,

JP

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@> wrote:
>
> You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a
better
> idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds
like
> Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull
lever.
> Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three
> hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and
realizes
> you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane
to
> show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
> getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming
up
> with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to
install
> the proven six pack.
>
> I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to
first
> flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
> argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked
pretty
> hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner
reflexor in a
> fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result
and that
> is what really counts.
>
> To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and
$'s on
> something that has already been solved and proven to be
successful? Do
> what works and go fly your plane.
>
> Dave Richardson
> Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Patillo
> Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Cc:
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a

idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds

Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull

Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three
hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and

you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane

show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming

with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to

the proven six pack.

I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to

flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked

hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner

fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result

is what really counts.

To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and

something that has already been solved and proven to be

what works and go fly your plane.

Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Patillo
Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)





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