Date   

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

1. Q2(GU-Taildragger) - Subaru EJ-22
2. Warp Drive 3 blade (about 13 degrees)
3. Reflexor - NO belly board - No numbers on the Reflexor but always shoot
for a three-point touchdown attitude on base/final (which is ailerons
reflexed UP (tail down))
4. Typically 1050-1100 lbs - Occasionally more
5. Dry, asphalt/concrete
6. Aft
7. Below...

My home airport is now E98 which has a 4340' x 37' runway at 4830' MSL. I
prefer to think of it as a 4350' x 40'.... ;-) Most of my flying here has
been at 7000-8000' density altitudes. I've got some things to test to see
if I screwed up my airplane (during the move here) but currently, I have to
be at 100mph all the way to touchdown or I am out of elevator. That speed
plus focus on keeping it on the runway result in using the WHOLE runway.
Takeoff only requires about 2500' (a guess).

Previous home base (FCM) had 3900x75 at 900' MSL. Same setup, DA of around
1500-2000'. Had to be over the numbers at 90 mph and generally touched down
around 85 mph. Typically used about 1500' on TO. Landings required about
2500'. If anything was amiss, I could chew up the whole length without a
second thought.

I NEVER do ANYTHING but fly the airplane until I am stopped (as in not
moving at all).

Jon Finley
N90MG - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru
Mid-Valley Airpark, Los Lunas, NM

P.S. I tried to land on a 2500' runway a couple of times in MN (no wind) and
could never get myself to commit as the end of the runway always appeared to
approaching must too fast.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
quickieaircraft
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:14 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread


I've been looking through the archives trying to figure out what a
reasonable expectation for a minimum TO/LD distance is for these
planes. I have encountered everything from 700ft (Mike!) to 3500
ft. If you want, post the distance that YOU takeoff/land in.

Please also include:
1)if you've got a tri (you might be able to hit the brakes harder) or
taildragger
2) Your prop--unless you like to land deadstick
3) any mods, esp the reflexor (and its setting) or VGs.
4) GVW during the TO/LD
5) field condition: wet, asphalt, grass?
6) whether you're pulling the stick aft, neutral, or fwd.
7) the airspeed @which you flare, hit the brakes, call your wife, and
do other important things.


Hopefully, we'll be able to identify what it is that those short
landing guys are doing right. But I've got a personal motivation
too. There's an airport by my house (CGS) that's 2607 x60ft and
could represent a high pucker factor.


Idaho runways for Sammy

David <quickieflying@...>
 

Hey Sam,
Believe it or not I've been by ones "scarier" than this up in Idaho,
I posted a couple of pics to look at but not of the runway

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos/view/fc27?
b=4&m=f&o=0 (Enjoy, I will delete it soon to save on space)

I saw one up there one could land at but can't imagine anyone flying
out. Just something to crash on I guess.

Also have a nice picture of your airport while I was there but
didn't post it.

David Hiatt
Seattle


"Sam Hoskins"

Here are a few airports that may be challenging. Maybe one or two
might be suitable for the Tandem Wing event. Any of you guys ever
been to any of these?

http://www.mountainflying.com/dewey1.htm
http://www.mountainflying.com/milehi2.htm
http://www.mountainflying.com/soldier5.htm
http://www.mountainflying.com/soldier6.htm

Sam Hoskins Q-200


Re: Headset

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

Well James, let me know what they offer, I really wanted the new type but
for the Sonerai it is just me in it so there is no conversation with a
passenger. I would just be interested in one of them.



Ron Triano



N91RT Sonerai IIs, is a bird, it really flies

Q200, Back working on it, soon to be flying

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
James Cartwright
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:21 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset



Yes they do. I use it all the time for my MP3 player.

James

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Triano
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:40 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset

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: the Official Runway Distance thread

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Here are a few airports that may be challenging. Maybe one or two might be
suitable for the Tandem Wing event. Any of you guys ever been to any of
these?

http://www.mountainflying.com/dewey1.htm
http://www.mountainflying.com/milehi2.htm
http://www.mountainflying.com/soldier5.htm
http://www.mountainflying.com/soldier6.htm

Sam Hoskins Q-200

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
quickieaircraft
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:14 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread



I've been looking through the archives trying to figure out what a
reasonable expectation for a minimum TO/LD distance is for these
planes. I have encountered everything from 700ft (Mike!) to 3500
ft. If you want, post the distance that YOU takeoff/land in.

Please also include:
1)if you've got a tri (you might be able to hit the brakes harder) or
taildragger
2) Your prop--unless you like to land deadstick
3) any mods, esp the reflexor (and its setting) or VGs.
4) GVW during the TO/LD
5) field condition: wet, asphalt, grass?
6) whether you're pulling the stick aft, neutral, or fwd.
7) the airspeed @which you flare, hit the brakes, call your wife, and
do other important things.

Hopefully, we'll be able to identify what it is that those short
landing guys are doing right. But I've got a personal motivation
too. There's an airport by my house (CGS) that's 2607 x60ft and
could represent a high pucker factor.


Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

MartinErni@...
 

Sam,
The 1st one looks like the place I did my 1st solo quickie flight.
That's what it felt like, but it was actually 8000X150. :-)

Earnest


FW: the Official Runway Distance thread

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Quickiecraft,



Best short field I have done as a Q2 tail dragger is 2114ft (gravel) with a
head wind of 10-15KTS and this is the cross strip at Maroochy I have used
several times.

Then I was based at Noosa which is narrow 25ft x 2760ft (gravel) with a
displaced threshold for trees at one end and a lake at the other. No go
arounds.

As a Q2 the prop was 56x49 and gross about 410KG

Now as a Q-200 Jabiru the prop is 56X72 and gross 420KG.

Best short field performance is found by following the POH. "Land full stall
tailwheel first" and for me that means over the fence at no more than 70KTS,
which translates into a fairly steep nose high descent , hold it off till
the stall warning peeps, then feel for the runway with the tailwheel and
pull full aft stick when it contacts the tarmac. Once the canard is stalled
then by holding full aft stick the elevator at 23 deg is a flap and
contributes useful drag which reduces the run. Takeoff run for both my Q2
and the Q200 is about 970ft to the lift off point. I have the modified
tailwheel hardware with vertical axis and pneumatic tyre, no other mods. I
believe that the tailwheel is for steering and the brakes are for braking.
For my preference I don't want a dual brakes and tailwheel steering mode and
would not recommend the added fail points and complexity of the additional
bellcrank. Just my opinion. Without dual brakes the plans bellcrank is fine
for parking and fine for fast taxi provided that you fix your eyes on the
end of the runway, otherwise there will be unavoidable PIO swerves.

I would recommend the Gall alignment based on the reports of others and a
reflexor would assist in managing the final approach visibility and flare.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
quickieaircraft
Sent: Saturday, 21 October 2006 11:14 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread



I've been looking through the archives trying to figure out what a
reasonable expectation for a minimum TO/LD distance is for these
planes. I have encountered everything from 700ft (Mike!) to 3500
ft. If you want, post the distance that YOU takeoff/land in.

Please also include:
1)if you've got a tri (you might be able to hit the brakes harder) or
taildragger
2) Your prop--unless you like to land deadstick
3) any mods, esp the reflexor (and its setting) or VGs.
4) GVW during the TO/LD
5) field condition: wet, asphalt, grass?
6) whether you're pulling the stick aft, neutral, or fwd.
7) the airspeed @which you flare, hit the brakes, call your wife, and
do other important things.

Hopefully, we'll be able to identify what it is that those short
landing guys are doing right. But I've got a personal motivation
too. There's an airport by my house (CGS) that's 2607 x60ft and
could represent a high pucker factor.


Re: Headset

James Cartwright <james.cartwright@...>
 

Yes they do. I use it all the time for my MP3 player.

James

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Triano
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:40 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset


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@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
James Cartwright
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
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)

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>
 

Nope. Bob just wanted the sudden flash of insight, so I haven't gotten it down on paper yet. If I didn't describe it well enough, I'll do a sketch for now.
Larry Hamm

Steve wrote:

Hey Larry, Have you got a drawing of your bellcrank??
Steve Ham
-- Original Message -----
From: Larry Hamm To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
Bob,
Install a bellcrank a la the JB6, but with a twist.
Fab a disk with a cable guide groove on the edge, sort of like an automotive throttle advance on the side of a carb or throttle body. This disk should be oval shaped, with the long axis pointed at the rudder. The rudder cables are connected at the end closest to the cockpit, and run down each side of the disk. This disk is attached to the top of the bellcrank. As the bellcrank and disk turn, the rudder cables see an increasing radius and turn the rudder faster. That will give you the exponential response you're looking for, I believe.
Clear as mud??
That's the "Hamm" mod to the JB6. (If it works!)
Larry Hamm
Bob Farnam wrote:

>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
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org
Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

bfarnam@...
 

Mike,

My tailwheel does move a little bit short of detent unlock and I get unlock by stabbing the brake on the side I'm turning to after I get full rudder. The springs give enough to let it unlock. I think Mark Summers did some machining on his tailwheel to change the detent position although I haven't seen it apart. Would be worth looking at and it probably wouldn't be too hard to do. Don't know about Aviation Products. They might be willing. I'll take a closer look at the assembly when I do my annual.

Bob F.

----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:08:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Bob:

I remember you saying that the unlock detent matched full rudder
deflection, but I don't remember exactly why. Suppose the tailwheel unlock
required 10 degrees more than full rudder. Couldn't you reach unlock by
going to full rudder then differential braking? Some skidding I suppose,
but wouldn't that be worth it if the plane was easier to control during
takeoff and landing? Alternately, could we change the detent
position? Would the folks at Aviation Products Inc. do a special run?

For anyone who wonders I have flown with Bob and his plane tracks very well!

Mike Perry

At 10:08 AM 10/20/2006 -0700, you wrote:

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


Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Quickiecraft,



Best short field I have done as a Q2 tail dragger is 2114ft (gravel) with a
head wind of 10-15KTS and this is the cross strip at Maroochy I have used
several times.

Then I was based at Noosa which is narrow 25ft x 2760ft (gravel) with a
displaced threshold for trees at one end and a lake at the other. No go
arounds.

As a Q2 the prop was 56x49 and gross about 410KG

Now as a Q-200 Jabiru the prop is 56X72 and gross 420KG.

Best short field performance is found by following the POH. "Land full stall
tailwheel first" and for me that means over the fence at no more than 70KTS,
which translates into a fairly steep nose high descent , hold it off till
the stall warning peeps, then feel for the runway with the tailwheel and
pull full aft stick when it contacts the tarmac. Once the canard is stalled
then by holding full aft stick the elevator at 23 deg is a flap and
contributes useful drag which reduces the run. Takeoff run for both my Q2
and the Q200 is about 970ft to the lift off point. I have the modified
tailwheel hardware with vertical axis and pneumatic tyre, no other mods. I
believe that the tailwheel is for steering and the brakes are for braking.
For my preference I don't want a dual brakes and tailwheel steering mode and
would not recommend the added fail points and complexity of the additional
bellcrank. Just my opinion. Without dual brakes the plans bellcrank is fine
for parking and fine for fast taxi provided that you fix your eyes on the
end of the runway, otherwise there will be unavoidable PIO swerves.

I would recommend the Gall alignment based on the reports of others and a
reflexor would assist in managing the final approach visibility and flare.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
quickieaircraft
Sent: Saturday, 21 October 2006 11:14 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread



I've been looking through the archives trying to figure out what a
reasonable expectation for a minimum TO/LD distance is for these
planes. I have encountered everything from 700ft (Mike!) to 3500
ft. If you want, post the distance that YOU takeoff/land in.

Please also include:
1)if you've got a tri (you might be able to hit the brakes harder) or
taildragger
2) Your prop--unless you like to land deadstick
3) any mods, esp the reflexor (and its setting) or VGs.
4) GVW during the TO/LD
5) field condition: wet, asphalt, grass?
6) whether you're pulling the stick aft, neutral, or fwd.
7) the airspeed @which you flare, hit the brakes, call your wife, and
do other important things.

Hopefully, we'll be able to identify what it is that those short
landing guys are doing right. But I've got a personal motivation
too. There's an airport by my house (CGS) that's 2607 x60ft and
could represent a high pucker factor.


Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

Your email didn't have your name or location which is always nice, so we know who's asking the question.

Without answering all your questions, the reality is your 2600 x 60 foot runway is not a good choice for the tail dragger version of this airplane unless you are very experienced in one. You come over the numbers at 80+ mph and things happen fast. I've landed within 2500' but it was on a runway of 150' x 8000' so I had plenty of room for error. Some of the more experienced pilots could do it, but I would guess they would not call a 2600x60 home base (Unless your Jon Finley). If you are talking about a grass field - look for a different aircraft.

Lets see what the Tri-Q guys think.

Just my "Humble" opinion.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: quickieaircraft
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread


I've been looking through the archives trying to figure out what a
reasonable expectation for a minimum TO/LD distance is for these
planes. I have encountered everything from 700ft (Mike!) to 3500
ft. If you want, post the distance that YOU takeoff/land in.

Please also include:
1)if you've got a tri (you might be able to hit the brakes harder) or
taildragger
2) Your prop--unless you like to land deadstick
3) any mods, esp the reflexor (and its setting) or VGs.
4) GVW during the TO/LD
5) field condition: wet, asphalt, grass?
6) whether you're pulling the stick aft, neutral, or fwd.
7) the airspeed @which you flare, hit the brakes, call your wife, and
do other important things.

Hopefully, we'll be able to identify what it is that those short
landing guys are doing right. But I've got a personal motivation
too. There's an airport by my house (CGS) that's 2607 x60ft and
could represent a high pucker factor.


Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

britmcman99
 

2607 feet is plenty of room to land a conventional Q200 taildragger. That's
all you should ever need if everything works out right. I have landed in
less than 2607 feet and on runways with 50' width. If you commit yourself to a
home airport where you must do this every time, then one day you will not
succeed. Plan for success by allowing some margin.

I had a good friend and mentor. He was my Civil Air Patrol Captain in
Shawnee Oklahoma. He had a Beech Musketeer and flew regularly out of his private
ranch airstrip. I had an opportunity to overfly his place in my Cherokee 140
and as a young low time pilot I thought to myself that I would never attempt
to land there in my plane. The day came when bad things happened and it
resulted in the loss of the pilot, plane and a passenger who was along for a joy
ride.

A 3000 foot runway is probably fine for a conventional Q200 pilot who is
proficient in his aircraft. Less than 3000 feet - pick a different aircraft.

I have a hunch that far too many pilots strive to touch the numbers on
landing and thus remove any margin for safety in the event of an engine failure on
final. Good practice would be to be able to make the field in the event of
an engine failure anywhere past midfield downwind. A short runway entices
folks to focus too much on what is at the other end of the runway when they
should leave a little worry about what is in front of the runway.

Just my two cents worth. I have flown and crash landed a Q200 and I am in
the process of prepping a Tri-Q200 and a Revmaster Q2. I love these planes,
but give me lots of runway.


Cheers,

Phil Lankford


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Bob:

I remember you saying that the unlock detent matched full rudder
deflection, but I don't remember exactly why. Suppose the tailwheel unlock
required 10 degrees more than full rudder. Couldn't you reach unlock by
going to full rudder then differential braking? Some skidding I suppose,
but wouldn't that be worth it if the plane was easier to control during
takeoff and landing? Alternately, could we change the detent
position? Would the folks at Aviation Products Inc. do a special run?

For anyone who wonders I have flown with Bob and his plane tracks very well!

Mike Perry

At 10:08 AM 10/20/2006 -0700, you wrote:

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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Thanks Dave for the WW II fighter info -- I knew I read it somewhere but
couldn't locate it last nite. I also vaguely remember something about a
tail dragger with only 5 deg of pivot before the tail wheel released.

Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen if we didn't have a
steerable tailwheel, and used differential brakes only for ground
steering? Maybe with a larger rudder? Plane would be a lot less likely to
swerve on the runway.

Mike Perry

At 11:27 PM 10/19/2006 -0700, you wrote:

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


the Official Runway Distance thread

quickieaircraft
 

I've been looking through the archives trying to figure out what a
reasonable expectation for a minimum TO/LD distance is for these
planes. I have encountered everything from 700ft (Mike!) to 3500
ft. If you want, post the distance that YOU takeoff/land in.

Please also include:
1)if you've got a tri (you might be able to hit the brakes harder) or
taildragger
2) Your prop--unless you like to land deadstick
3) any mods, esp the reflexor (and its setting) or VGs.
4) GVW during the TO/LD
5) field condition: wet, asphalt, grass?
6) whether you're pulling the stick aft, neutral, or fwd.
7) the airspeed @which you flare, hit the brakes, call your wife, and
do other important things.


Hopefully, we'll be able to identify what it is that those short
landing guys are doing right. But I've got a personal motivation
too. There's an airport by my house (CGS) that's 2607 x60ft and
could represent a high pucker factor.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Steve <sham@...>
 

Hey Larry, Have you got a drawing of your bellcrank??


Steve Ham

-- Original Message -----
From: Larry Hamm
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


Bob,

Install a bellcrank a la the JB6, but with a twist.

Fab a disk with a cable guide groove on the edge, sort of like an
automotive throttle advance on the side of a carb or throttle body. This
disk should be oval shaped, with the long axis pointed at the rudder.
The rudder cables are connected at the end closest to the cockpit, and
run down each side of the disk. This disk is attached to the top of the
bellcrank. As the bellcrank and disk turn, the rudder cables see an
increasing radius and turn the rudder faster. That will give you the
exponential response you're looking for, I believe.

Clear as mud??

That's the "Hamm" mod to the JB6. (If it works!)

Larry Hamm

Bob Farnam wrote:

>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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Hi Jim
That helps clear it up. I had always thought a locking tailwheel (& a grippy tyre) would help, it's the first time I have read or realized that someone is using one.
AF


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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

You are right Bob, thanks for the correction. That is the idea though.



Ron Triano



N91RT Sonerai IIs, is a bird, it really flies

Q200, Back working on it, soon to be flying

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Bob Farnam
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]On Behalf
Of
Ron Triano
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:22 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:15 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
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)

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>
 

Bob,

Install a bellcrank a la the JB6, but with a twist.

Fab a disk with a cable guide groove on the edge, sort of like an automotive throttle advance on the side of a carb or throttle body. This disk should be oval shaped, with the long axis pointed at the rudder. The rudder cables are connected at the end closest to the cockpit, and run down each side of the disk. This disk is attached to the top of the bellcrank. As the bellcrank and disk turn, the rudder cables see an increasing radius and turn the rudder faster. That will give you the exponential response you're looking for, I believe.

Clear as mud??

That's the "Hamm" mod to the JB6. (If it works!)

Larry Hamm

Bob Farnam wrote:

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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

David J. Gall
 

...Took the words right out of my keyboard...!

(No wonder the Sonerai is twitchy...????)

:)


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long
editorial)

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)


< snip! >

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.

< snip! >

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200