Date   

Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Sam Hoskins
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


My two cents worth, where I disagree with my good friend, Jim.

1. I do use differential finger brakes, with great success. They are
positioned right behind the throttle. I let go of the throttle to use the
brakes. You can see my installation here:
http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/brakes01.jpg

2. I do have rudder splitters. See the installation here:
http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/aircraftdetail/tailcone01.jpg

Each cable, splitting off to the rudder bellcrank, has a turnbuckle for
adjustment.

3. I do not have the intermediate bellcrank.
[Bob Farnam]

I still don't like the cable split without the belcrank, because it puts
most of the rudder pedal load on the lower rudder bearing. That load can be
quite high. It's OK IF you don't lean on the rudder pedals (I sometimes do
during stressful moments) and if the lower rudder bearing is up to it. It
isn't very stout in the original.

[Bob Farnam] Bob F.

I believe the single biggest ground handling improvement that can be made
is
correcting the wheel alignment, per Gall. I made a blog entry about it:
http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/

Having said that, I think it's fine for people to install the 6-pack. A
couple of years ago I had the opportunity to taxi Jim's plane. I thought
it
felt a lot like mine, though maybe a little "softer" on the rudder pedals
due to the tail wheel cable springs. (I bought a set, but never got around
to installing them).

Jim's point is well taken, if you build like a successful model, you
should
have the same results as that plane. However, "tame" is a word that is not
in my Quickie vocabularly.

Sam Hoskins

Murpysburger, IL

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

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.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

Just backwards, Ron. If you want less angular movement of the tailwheel, you
should use a big (long) belcrank on the tailwheel, not a short one.

Bob F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Ron Triano
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:22 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


Allen, whichever rudder/tailwheel system you choose to use you can get the
same results if you want to change the angle of the tailwheel.

Just think of the tailwheel as a gear with a chain to another gear. Small
to
big or big to small, If you want less movement at the tailwheel just move
the attach holes on the tailwheel bellcrank closer to the center. In other
words, big rudder bellcrank small tailwheel bellcrank will let the
tailwheel
travel less. I presently am flying my Sonerai which also is very twitchy.
But the difference between the two is the Sonerai tail is lifted shortly
after power applied and you are steering with the rudder only. Most take
the
Q off in 3 point attitude. The main point I am trying to get across is to
study each system, many work just fine. I never like being a Sheep and
following the whole pack. These are Experimental aircraft, so try things
only after much study and don't be shy to say I was wrong.

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:15 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Allan,

Reread my comment. I didn't like the idea of loosing control and not
being able to get back to center line way before I installed the
brakes. This was obviously the opinion of a lot of others as well and
today you see the results. QAC designed a pretty rudimentary airplane.
Cheap was a word that was in their vocabulary.

Further as David pointed out, we discovered a long time ago that
keeping the tailwheel straight as possible on take off or landing was
a must in a Q. If you could prevent twitchyness you had much better
control. Tailwheel/rudder differential via the bellcrank with internal
springs to the tail wheel to absorb side loads and Air Products
locking tail wheel did the trick. The new locking/swiveling tailwheel
has a 6" bellcrank and the stock rudder has a 3" bellcrank. We simply
installed an additional 6" bellcrank behind the FS120 bulkhead. The
tailwheel cables attach to the internal bellcrank at 6" (same width as
tailwheel bell crank) via springs and the rudder cables attached to
the internal bellcrank at 3-4" (same as rudder bellcrank) from rudder
to internal bellcrank. Thus a desensitized tailwheel/rudder with
proportionally more rudder travel for a given tail wheel input.

Hope this clears it up and why the bellcrank/tailwheel combo is a
valuable asset on this airplane. Add Gall Alignment and toe brake mod
and you have a stable airplane.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Allan
Farr" <afarr@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Jim. When you say that you found the single pull
lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of
it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC
obviously thought the opposite.
> Regards
> Allan F
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Patillo
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
> 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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
> > 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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com,
"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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
> > > Cc:
> > > Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

My ratio is not as much as I would like, but is limited by my own
requirement that I be able to reach the unlock detent on the full swivelling
tailwheel at full rudder. This so I can pivot around a wheel on the ground.
The result is that my airplane is less sensitive than the original design -
enough that I can fairly easily steer it straight at takeoff speed, but
still sensitive. I would really like to have what the RC guys refer to as
"exponential" control, where the response is low in the center part of the
travel, but increases at full rudder input. Easy to do with an RC
transmitter which has it builtin, but I haven't yet figured out a simple and
durable mechanical way to make it happen. Anyone have a sudden flash of
insight?

Bob F
EAA Flight Advisor

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 1:17 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


I suggested a locking tailwheel about a year ago, but nobody seemed to
think very much of the idea.
Allan F

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 19:27
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Mike,

You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating:

> 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.

Consider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection
before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to
airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending
on
the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder
deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal
deflection.

A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined
with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat
(giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really
desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning
radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical
ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring
right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying
airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob?

Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to
go
STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is
locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels.
The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional
control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some
steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the
tailwheel unlocked....

David J. Gall

> -----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.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

As I said Dave, something about sheep.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Dave Richardson
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



Hi Ron,

I might point out that your disagreements are based on your theoretical
observations. The sixpack is based now on repeated experiences by
several different pilots. The sixpack bellcrank deals with more issues
than your setup with the different ratios being sent to the rudder and
tailwheel. That's not to say your system won't work. Heck you could
probably take a big stick with you in the cockpit and poke it through
holes and drag it on the runway to give you differential braking.
People can get used to most anything.

I've always heard the best way to do something well is to find someone
who is successful and do what they do.

Dave Richardson


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Triano
Sent: Fri 10/20/2006 8:45 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long
editorial)


Tri Q nebie

austin964404 <austin.rowlands@...>
 

Hi all,

Feels good to introduce myself to some like minded people. I'm
purchasing a Tri Q thats been stripped down for inspection over here
in rainy blighty.
Sure I'll probably have some questions along the way and just wanted
to let you all know i'm here

Austin


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Ron,

Klaus is using his own design and yes I'm sure he's turning hisprop in
the 4,000 + RPM range.

Dave Richardson is correct my friend. You are still therotical in your
modifications until your plane is in the air. You may have solved the
problem and you may not have. We'll find out shortly, won't we? Your
comment about not being a "sheep" is interesting. That might just be
some flawed logic there.

Best regards,
Jim P.

P.S. Did you get that new headset ordered?




--- In Q-LIST@..., "Ron Triano" <rondefly@...> wrote:

I wonder what Klaus is using for a prop and what RPM he is turning.
Could he
be turning the 4400+ like the formula 1s.?



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:23 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com,
"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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

















Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

I've always heard the best way to do something well is to find someone
who is successful and do what they do.
It may be the easiest way to an end, but not necessarily the best.

If everyone followed this motto, we'd have no six-pack.

For that matter, we'd have no tandem wing aircraft as well as no composite
construction.



Pat


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Dave Richardson <dave@...>
 

Hi Ron,

I might point out that your disagreements are based on your theoretical
observations. The sixpack is based now on repeated experiences by
several different pilots. The sixpack bellcrank deals with more issues
than your setup with the different ratios being sent to the rudder and
tailwheel. That's not to say your system won't work. Heck you could
probably take a big stick with you in the cockpit and poke it through
holes and drag it on the runway to give you differential braking.
People can get used to most anything.

I've always heard the best way to do something well is to find someone
who is successful and do what they do.

Dave Richardson

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Triano
Sent: Fri 10/20/2006 8:45 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long
editorial)


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

denpau@...
 

I guess the Q2 had many variations in the beginning. A friend gave me his
mechanical (cable) brake pedals (Q2) when he put in hyd. brakes. They slipped
on my original Q1 rudder pedals easily. A hole drilled in the end of foot
portion of the pedal allows a washer and a cotter pin to secure it. I had to
go to motorcycle technology (a cable housing) to get the cable to the canard
but it works well. SOME of you guys must remember the Q2 mechanical brakes.
Dennis


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

Allen, whichever rudder/tailwheel system you choose to use you can get the
same results if you want to change the angle of the tailwheel.

Just think of the tailwheel as a gear with a chain to another gear. Small to
big or big to small, If you want less movement at the tailwheel just move
the attach holes on the tailwheel bellcrank closer to the center. In other
words, big rudder bellcrank small tailwheel bellcrank will let the tailwheel
travel less. I presently am flying my Sonerai which also is very twitchy.
But the difference between the two is the Sonerai tail is lifted shortly
after power applied and you are steering with the rudder only. Most take the
Q off in 3 point attitude. The main point I am trying to get across is to
study each system, many work just fine. I never like being a Sheep and
following the whole pack. These are Experimental aircraft, so try things
only after much study and don't be shy to say I was wrong.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:15 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



Allan,

Reread my comment. I didn't like the idea of loosing control and not
being able to get back to center line way before I installed the
brakes. This was obviously the opinion of a lot of others as well and
today you see the results. QAC designed a pretty rudimentary airplane.
Cheap was a word that was in their vocabulary.

Further as David pointed out, we discovered a long time ago that
keeping the tailwheel straight as possible on take off or landing was
a must in a Q. If you could prevent twitchyness you had much better
control. Tailwheel/rudder differential via the bellcrank with internal
springs to the tail wheel to absorb side loads and Air Products
locking tail wheel did the trick. The new locking/swiveling tailwheel
has a 6" bellcrank and the stock rudder has a 3" bellcrank. We simply
installed an additional 6" bellcrank behind the FS120 bulkhead. The
tailwheel cables attach to the internal bellcrank at 6" (same width as
tailwheel bell crank) via springs and the rudder cables attached to
the internal bellcrank at 3-4" (same as rudder bellcrank) from rudder
to internal bellcrank. Thus a desensitized tailwheel/rudder with
proportionally more rudder travel for a given tail wheel input.

Hope this clears it up and why the bellcrank/tailwheel combo is a
valuable asset on this airplane. Add Gall Alignment and toe brake mod
and you have a stable airplane.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Allan
Farr" <afarr@...> wrote:

Thanks for that Jim. When you say that you found the single pull
lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of
it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC
obviously thought the opposite.
Regards
Allan F

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

















Headset & FCC

denpau@...
 

Since, like most of you, I use a cell phone, I was intrigued by the
advertising of headsets with cell phone connections.
I had been reading, off and on, about regulations against using a cell in
flight. It would be great to give my brother a call, 20 minutes out, to pick
me up at the airport.
I e-mailed the EAA to get some reliable info. The reply was that the FAA
didn't have any regs against cell use in the air but the FCC says no, no,
definitely NO!

Dennis


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

I wonder what Klaus is using for a prop and what RPM he is turning. Could he
be turning the 4400+ like the formula 1s.?



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:23 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)












Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

This same subject comes up more than any other, so I will add my designs
also as I already have many times over.

1) I agree with some that toe brakes are much easier and more
convienient than heal or hand brakes, also for me much safer. However I
chose to use my own geometry on the pedal to avoid the pedal changing angle
with forward and aft movement of the rudder pedal.

2) I do not agree in using a second bellcrank for the
rudder/tailwheel, that just adds more fittings and hardware, (more things to
break, keep it simple). Mine is plenty beefy and I used springs on the
tailwheel like every other taildragger. My cables go directly to the rudder
then on to the tailwheel. I won't crash by loosing a tailwheel but just mite
if I loose my rudder.

3) I do not agree with the alignment used in the 6 pack, I went a
completely different way and now have caster and camber adjustment
available. By sighting a line from one axle to a dimension on the other side
is no way to align a wheel, Everyone has different weight on their canard
and different strength due to each glassed canard is not exactly the same.
for the spring effect. I do agree that this is probably the most important
item to get your quickie to run true, I do not attach to the outer wheel
pant at all, all adjustment is made from the 4 bolts attaching the axle on
the inner wheel pant. (just like most other wheel mounts). There is someone
on this list that is a DAR and came up with something similar to mine and
has the outer part of the wheel pant removable. I really like that as now to
change my tire I have to remove the 4 bolts and drop the wheel out of the
bottom.

If you are building from scratch and are not interested in reviewing each
method then I suggest you pay real good attention to the above points, Jim
and others have it working so pay attention to them.

If you bought someone elses 99% done quickie like I did then all bets are
off. You are in for plenty of work. Just be sure you get the alignment right
for your weight and exact quickie.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Dave Richardson
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:50 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


Re: Headset

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

Jim, I enjoy being a tight wad, vat a good deal, As I said already the
lightspeed is probably the way I will go. I just enjoy checking out the
other competition to prove to myself I got the best for my purpose. The
hours are building too slow just on the weekend.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:39 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Headset



Ron, quit being such a damn tight wad and just purchase a new 30 3G,
there are only $585.00! That will give you what you want and it will
be new. You can't beat Lightspeed for service warranty and back up.
Loosen up with that dough, you can't take it with you and you sure
as hell don't want to give it all to your kids.

Hope all is well with your flight testing. How many hours now?

Regards,
Jim P

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Ron
Triano" <rondefly@...> wrote:

James, do they have the cell plugin and what is the amount of noise
canceling ? If so, let me know how much they offer.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----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
James Cartwright
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset



Ron,
I have a couple of Lightspeed headsets I was going to send in for
the 30 3g
units. Maybe I can set you up for the same price they are going to
give me
for a trade in. These units are only 2 years old. They are the
QFRXCc
Headset.

James
615-293-3134

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Triano
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset

Thanks Phil for the offer, from everything I hear about the
lightspeed type
that probably is the way I will go however what is a Marv Golden
one?

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf
Of
britmcman@aol. <mailto:britmcman%40aol.com> com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset

Ron:

If you like, I could lend you a Marv Golden Logo'd version of the
Lightspeed

QFR Cross Country C. It has a cell phone interface and is a pretty
nice
unit. Or a 30 3 G Lightspeed (also with cell phone interface). You
can get
an
idea about what some of the Lightspeed products are all about. I
trust you.

Cheers,

Phil













Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Allan,

Reread my comment. I didn't like the idea of loosing control and not
being able to get back to center line way before I installed the
brakes. This was obviously the opinion of a lot of others as well and
today you see the results. QAC designed a pretty rudimentary airplane.
Cheap was a word that was in their vocabulary.

Further as David pointed out, we discovered a long time ago that
keeping the tailwheel straight as possible on take off or landing was
a must in a Q. If you could prevent twitchyness you had much better
control. Tailwheel/rudder differential via the bellcrank with internal
springs to the tail wheel to absorb side loads and Air Products
locking tail wheel did the trick. The new locking/swiveling tailwheel
has a 6" bellcrank and the stock rudder has a 3" bellcrank. We simply
installed an additional 6" bellcrank behind the FS120 bulkhead. The
tailwheel cables attach to the internal bellcrank at 6" (same width as
tailwheel bell crank) via springs and the rudder cables attached to
the internal bellcrank at 3-4" (same as rudder bellcrank) from rudder
to internal bellcrank. Thus a desensitized tailwheel/rudder with
proportionally more rudder travel for a given tail wheel input.

Hope this clears it up and why the bellcrank/tailwheel combo is a
valuable asset on this airplane. Add Gall Alignment and toe brake mod
and you have a stable airplane.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote:

Thanks for that Jim. When you say that you found the single pull
lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of
it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC
obviously thought the opposite.
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
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]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Thanks for that Jim. When you say that you found the single pull lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC obviously thought the opposite.
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 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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

I suggested a locking tailwheel about a year ago, but nobody seemed to think very much of the idea.
Allan F

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 19:27
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


Mike,

You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating:

> 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.

Consider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection
before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to
airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending on
the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder
deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal
deflection.

A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined
with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat
(giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really
desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning
radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical
ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring
right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying
airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob?

Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to go
STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is
locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels.
The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional
control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some
steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the
tailwheel unlocked....

David J. Gall

> -----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.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

David J. Gall
 

Mike,

You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating:

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.
Consider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection
before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to
airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending on
the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder
deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal
deflection.

A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined
with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat
(giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really
desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning
radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical
ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring
right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying
airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob?

Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to go
STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is
locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels.
The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional
control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some
steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the
tailwheel unlocked....


David J. Gall

-----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.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

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.

----------


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Terry Crouch is the resident Q1 Wizard. If its been done he knows the
good and bad about it.

Regards,
Jim Patillo


-- In Q-LIST@..., "FR Jones" <seabeevet@...> wrote:

Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me a
little.
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
attached
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]