Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>

Good suggestions, David. The "K" belcrank would also provide stronger
centering action from the pedal return springs - not a bad thing. Might make
a good winter project.

Bob F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Bob,

Larry Hamm's suggestion is good but it requires significant angular
displacement of the belcrank to get any substantial differential.

Consider this alternative: Make your tailcone belcrank in the shape of the
letter 'K' with the angled legs pointing forward. The rudder pedal cables
connect to the angled legs, but the rudder and tailwheel cables connect to
the straight leg. This gives a differential since the angular displacement
of the belcrank is increased for any given linear displacement of the
cable
the more the angled belcrank leg moves forward in its arc [d-theta/d-x
goes
as 1/cos(theta)].

Similarly, move the cable attachment points on the rudder pedals aft of
the
plane of the rudder pedal pivot so that as the rudder pedal is pressed
forward, the attachment point arm becomes more perpendicular to the line
of
travel of the cable.

Either of these geometries will induce a differential movement in the
belcrank; both together will give even more differential.

The resulting angular differential can be amplified or reduced by varying
the ratio between the length of the angled legs of the belcrank and the
effective lengths of the rudder pedal arms (and the desired throw of the
pedals forward of neutral). The ratio of the length of the angled legs of
the belcrank to the straight legs and, finally, to the length of the
rudder
and tailwheel belhorns will control the total angle of the rudder and
tailwheel deflections with rudder pedal displacement.

David J. Gall
P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be fabricated as an oval or
ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will work.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:08 AM
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
> 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

Re: Tri Q nebie

austin964404 <austin.rowlands@...>

Hi Jon and Richard,

Rainy blighty is indeed england.
Yes Richard, it's the airframe farry had for sale and it is quite
tidy. Hope to get it as pristeen as his. He's only down the road and
so i'll be nicking ideas off of him and others alot to try to get it
good.

It has a reflexor and i'm going to order the new noseleg soon. Got
to install a new firewall, sand and fill the airframe and re-install
the controls.

It's got a new 85hp VW so i need to move the engine mounts about too
as it was a Tri-Q200.

Hope to have it ready for next summer. I've got a lot of holiday to
use up so Lisa (wife) and I are going to get reall stuck in over the
winter.

All hints and tips apprieciated.

Austin
--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Finley" <jon@...> wrote:

Welcome Austin,

Where is "rainy blighty"? I'm guessing England??

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of
austin964404
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:33 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Tri Q nebie

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: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David J. Gall

Larry,

Yah, round corners. Since price is no object, you could use some of your
surplus \$5 gold pieces for radiussed corners. The gold will wear instead of
the steel cables. Probably cost less than using some of those phenolic
aircraft-grade pulleys for round corners, eh? :)

Actually, you've got me thinking more and more about your/our approach. We'd
need some way to "keep" the cables so that they'd be sure to engage the
groove on your ellipse or any of my oddball shapes. It could be so simple to
make the diamond shape by using a couple of plates held apart by spacers,
with the cables running between the plates and attached to one of the
spacers at the fore end, the narrow axis of the diamond established by a
couple more spaceers, and the other end of the diamond by another spacer.
Two plates, four sets of bolts/spacers, and some cotter pins outside the
cable runs to act as cable keepers. The bottom plate could double as the JB
belcrank....

I'm opposed to the idea of modifying the Air Products tailwheel for the cost
of it, so maybe this is a cheaper approach. We'll see.

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Larry Hamm
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David,
OK, I see what you're getting at. The only practical drawback
I envision with hard geometric shapes is the possibility of
wear on the cables as they cross the corners. As far as
expense, well, that train left the station a long time ago,
and I'm not even half finished! Less than the price of a
Continental exhaust valve, I'd guess.
Larry

Re: I give!

MartinErni@...

Jim,
All who agree with your suggestions have accepted them are quietly
making the changes and will be grateful that they did. Don't allow the few who
disagree the loudest stop you from helping the new guys in the future who do
listen and consider your suggestions. Being loud doesn't make them right.

Cheers

Earnest

Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>

David,
OK, I see what you're getting at. The only practical drawback I envision with hard geometric shapes is the possibility of wear on the cables as they cross the corners. As far as expense, well, that train left the station a long time ago, and I'm not even half finished! Less than the price of a Continental exhaust valve, I'd guess.
Larry

David J. Gall wrote:

Larry,
One does not need a "smoothly increasing radius" to get a smoothly
increasing differential control effect. Nor do we need a "smoothly"
increasing differential effect, just one that is not discontinuous or too
abrupt (no sudden "shifting gears" to unnerve the pilot). The diamond and
rectangle each meet this criterion. Consider:
The effect of your oval cam comes from the increasing arm length
perpendicular to the cable as the angular deflection moves away from
neutral. Rhetorical question: Were we to use your "oval" as a mathematical
ellipse, what aspect ratio would you advise? In the limit, the aspect ratio
could go to zero (minor axis length divided by major axis length) and we
would have a "bar" oriented parallel to the rudder cables, with said rudder
cables attached at the fore end (farthest from the rudder). As the belcrank rotates this "bar," initially the infinitesimal motion
transmitted to the tailwheel belhorn is zero (yes, that's a problem we'll
deal with in just a moment). Then the aft end of the ellipse ("bar") "picks
up" the cable and starts to move it laterally away from the belcrank pivot,
giving an increasing arm perpendicular to the cable and starting to pull on
the cable. You'll notice that the effective arm length increases gradually
with rotation of the belcrank, not suddenly, so it gives a progressive
increase in effectiveness, just like your ellipse would give; it IS an
ellipse (okay, a degenerate ellipse if you must). Hence, the "bar" is
equivalent to the ellipse in providing a progressive differential at
increasing deflections from neutral. Using the "bar" with the rudder cables
attached at the fore end, the opposite cable moves with the fore end of the
bar giving just enough slack to let the tailwheel belhorn pivot without
letting the cables actually go slack, just like your ellipse.
What you achieve with your ellipse is that you control the "minimum" ratio
between belcrank and belhorn by choosing a minor axis length of the ellipse
that is greater than zero. The "bar" version of the ellipse has the
disadvantage that control near neutral is non-existent. In both cases, the
major axis of the ellipse/length of the bar sets the maximum ratio of
belcrank to belhorn. (The amount of differential is the ratio between the
minimum and maximum described above.)
So, the drawback to the "bar" is that it is not wide enough near neutral,
resulting in not enough control deflection, so the remedy is to make the bar
wider. Whether the long end of the bar "picks up" the cable in a perfectly
elliptical manner or not is such a minor difference that my fat feet will
never notice it. Make the "bar" wider by making it a rectangle and the
differential effect will start immediately on deflection away from neutral;
make the bar a diamond and you can enforce a small region near neutral where
the ratio stays low, then increases after the aft portion of the diamond
"picks up" the cable and starts to move it laterally, mimicking your perfect
ellipse with much simpler manufacturing effort. The only real limitation to
the shape of the ellipse/bar/diamond/rectangle cam is that it must force the
cables into convex symmetry about the forward part of the device at all
anticipated deflections so that the cables don't go slack.
Work it out in your favorite modelling software, or go prototype it in
cardboard and thumbtacks and string and convince yourself that it works just
as well with less fabrication effort than machining an elliptical plate with
a groove along its edge (that would be a pricey part indeed!)
David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Hamm
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David,
So, how does one achieve a smoothly increasing radius, and hence the exponential control effect, with a diamond or a rectangle?? I'm not real clear on that!
Larry Hamm

David J. Gall wrote:

P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be fabricated as
an oval or
ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will work.
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Re: Reflexor

Dave Richardson <dave@...>

Peter,

If you use the Falkner puck inside of a doughnut reflexor, I doubt you
would need to hack the tail off of your plane to install. It would be a
pain, but you flox and glass the doughnut portion in the center upright
of the bulkhead so I doubt it matters if you cut the large hole for the
doughnut from the front or the rear.

The reason I mention this is you talk in another post about having the
I found on crosscountries that there seems to be a balance you can
strike between the two wings. I was flying along one day and noticed
the elevator on my side of the plane was up about 1/4". So, I used the
elevator trim to fair in the elevator and readjusted the reflexor to fly
level again. Two things happened and they were both good. I picked up
about 2-3 mph and the nose was lower relative to the horizon. It was so
much lower I thought I was in a dive until I crosschecked my
instruments.

I use my right elevator for roll trim and found I got my best speeds
when I flew with my wife Susie because I could get the right elevator
closer to being faired in vs the 5/8" up when I fly solo and I could get
the ailerons reflexed down so they were almost faired in as well.

I know there can be installation variations in the way the wing and
canard are mounted relative to the fueslage as well as many other
factors, but for me, letting the plane fly faired in on both wings seems
to give pretty good results. I'm guessing there is less drag when
things are faired in.

Do you feel like you have too much reflexed up when you fly with a
passenger and the CG is more aft?

The other nice thing the reflexor does is it allows me to take the
pressure off the elevator after I raise the nose up and reduce power
abeam the numbers. By doing this the elevator is faired in again but
I'm descending at 500' fpm or what ever descent rate I'm working with
based on the throttle setting. It also helps me lock in or maintain the
airspeed I'm using because I can raise the nose to trim to a particular
airspeed and the elevators are still faired in. By doing this I end up
on short final with the elevators pretty close to faired in and I have
full travel available yet I have an established descent rate at a
selected airspeed that the reflexor let me control.

Now I point out again that I have an Tri-Q not the conventional gear. I
don't know how that is going to effect you when you are setting up for

At first I used the elevator trim for primary trim and hardly touched
the reflexor. I was then convinced to use the reflexor for trim and I
have not looked back. The only thing I use the elevator trim for now is
to make sure the elevator is faired in relative to the reflexor. I do
believe there is a different elevator and reflexor trim setting when
flying solo or with a passenger due to the aft shift in CG.

So, to me, the reflexor is a primary trim control I use now on takeoff,
climb, cruise, descent and landings. I have it installed in my lower
left quadrent along with the throttle. It is easier and less disruptive
to use vs. reaching across to the center lower area for the elevator
trim, too. I was told to use a vernier to control the reflexor and I'm
glad I listened. I can make both quick changes and small adjustments
with ease. It helps me correct for weight changes. It helps me lock in
airspeeds during climbs and descents. It also helps me trim for best
speed. On take off in my Tri-Q, it helps me regulate how much pressure
I'll need to pull back on the stick to rotate depending on weight.
Actually, I think the only time I don't use the reflexor is when I'm
taxiing. <grin>

Installing the Falkner inflight adjustable reflexor would be much less
work than you think and would be far easier to reset than what you go
You could be done with most of the glass work in a weekend. Just make
sure you set it up so moving the control forward lowers the ailerons and
pulling the control aft raises the ailerons. That way the control moves
the same way you move your elevators and you won't confuse which
direction you need to apply the reflexor.

Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 825DR

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Harris
Sent: Sun 10/22/2006 5:00 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread

Phil I have not fitted a reflexor because I think I would need to cut
the
hull for access to make it. But it seems to me that the only reason to
have
a reflexor is so that you can improve visibility as in your case on the
final approach. Otherwise the Q flies faster and also flares better for
landing with the aelerons up.

I have been working with aelerons fixed up 3/8" and suffer a slight
visibility issue on late final and flare but flare and cruise are
optimum
with the fixed setting.

Peter

Re: Flight characteristics questions

Dave Richardson <dave@...>

Hi Tim,

I tested your rudder during bank question this past weekend in my Tri-Q2
with an LS1 canard with anhedral and standard rudder. I was doing laps
around the pattern and building up landings and remembered your post.
So while banking to the left on crosswind to downwind, I applied right
rudder and the plane leveled off to the right as you were expecting. I
did it twice to make sure of the results. I did not get the sense that
I was yawing. It felt more like I had used the ailerons to roll out.

I hope that was the feedback you were looking for. I know Earnest
reported similar results as well.

Maybe you've got one of those dad'burn rudders that are too big! <grin>
All kidding aside, something must be up for you to get the results you
are describing.

I don't recall consciously using the rudder like that in a bank before.
It makes all the more sense now why the instructors harp on it so much
to fly coordinated especially in a bank and not be lazy on the rudders.
I was talking with Earnest about rudders at Emporia and how I noticed
during the ride out that it seems like you always have to keep an eye on
the ball. Any change in pitch or roll or throttle you make seems to
result in the ball being off center. One thing I also noticed was how
easy it was to hear when the ball was off center. I'm guessing it was
the sound of the air rushing in the NACA vents that I was noticing that
changed in intensity when I would be even slightly slipping or skidding.
The rudder on this plane seems like it is a one legged stool where you
just can't set and forget but you always have to keep on top of it.

Good luck tracking down your problems.

Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 825DR

-----Original Message-----
From: q2fun
Sent: Mon 10/16/2006 7:27 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flight characteristics questions

Hi All,

Rudder to control bank. My rudder does not do anything for bank.
If the wing is down 5 degrees and you use the rudder to bring it up,
all that happens is the plane will yaw and the bank may even get
steeper. Is that a normal characteristic of the Q design?

Thank You All.
Tim Bryant
KUNV
N86TB

Re: [SPAM]Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>

Jon - I as well reflex the nose down on final so I can see over the nose. As I slow down the nose seems to naturally pitch up. Once I touch down I reflex the tail down to keep it on the runway.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM]Re: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread

Hi Mike,

I don't usually go to full up (nose up) reflex but am close.

Given the comments lately (Mike, Phil), I think I'll try a few approaches
with down reflex (nose down) to see what happens - I've never tried that
before. I'll also do the flight angle versus pitch buck tests - again,
interesting experiment.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Mike Dwyer
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread

Hey Jon,
Did I read that right, you land with full up aileron reflexer?

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>

Phil,

Only about 15hrs to date with the Jab. Phil the way I see it aft elevator
increases lift on the canard which transfers weight back onto the tail wheel
during rollout and that is what we want for steering. I have explained my
views on some of the 6 pack items and the reasons why and I hope no-one is
offended by that. I think my reasons are OK and I really do believe that it
is time to get a standard operating procedure sorted out for the reflexor.
I think I am not the only one to see a loss of elevator authority due to
flush aelerons. I am happy that the reflexor was not an issue with N870BM
and that may be because they were never flush but always reflexed to some
degree.. I have explained my own experience and will be able to report again
on elevator authority with flush aelerons on VHONQ. The sparrow strainers
have not been altered but I have been operating with more reflex than before
and I think that is probably the cause of the strained wrist. Stay tuned.

Cheers,

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
britmcman@aol.com
Sent: Monday, 23 October 2006 3:56 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread

You wrote:

objective is to get the tailwheel down early and load it with aft elevator
and a stalled canard.

Peter. The elevator is at the wrong end of the craft to make the tail go
down. It has no effect on the downward force applied to the tail. This is
going to turn into a physics class and for some minute degree of force
differences there might be some small amount argued by some.

You are doing something right since you are flying in that Jabiru craft. I
can't knock success, but I still get a since that you absolutely have a
closed mind to the whole 6-pack contributions. In N870BM there was not any
reflex
setting that made the aircraft dangerous to fly. Aileron authority was
positive regardless of setting. It just made a lot more things possible and
it
definitely helped stick the tail wheel during landing rollout. Your comment
might
be a factor.

How many flight hours do you have on that Jab to-date?

Cheers,

Phil

Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David J. Gall

Larry,

One does not need a "smoothly increasing radius" to get a smoothly
increasing differential control effect. Nor do we need a "smoothly"
increasing differential effect, just one that is not discontinuous or too
abrupt (no sudden "shifting gears" to unnerve the pilot). The diamond and
rectangle each meet this criterion. Consider:

The effect of your oval cam comes from the increasing arm length
perpendicular to the cable as the angular deflection moves away from
neutral. Rhetorical question: Were we to use your "oval" as a mathematical
ellipse, what aspect ratio would you advise? In the limit, the aspect ratio
could go to zero (minor axis length divided by major axis length) and we
would have a "bar" oriented parallel to the rudder cables, with said rudder
cables attached at the fore end (farthest from the rudder).

As the belcrank rotates this "bar," initially the infinitesimal motion
transmitted to the tailwheel belhorn is zero (yes, that's a problem we'll
deal with in just a moment). Then the aft end of the ellipse ("bar") "picks
up" the cable and starts to move it laterally away from the belcrank pivot,
giving an increasing arm perpendicular to the cable and starting to pull on
the cable. You'll notice that the effective arm length increases gradually
with rotation of the belcrank, not suddenly, so it gives a progressive
increase in effectiveness, just like your ellipse would give; it IS an
ellipse (okay, a degenerate ellipse if you must). Hence, the "bar" is
equivalent to the ellipse in providing a progressive differential at
increasing deflections from neutral. Using the "bar" with the rudder cables
attached at the fore end, the opposite cable moves with the fore end of the
bar giving just enough slack to let the tailwheel belhorn pivot without
letting the cables actually go slack, just like your ellipse.

What you achieve with your ellipse is that you control the "minimum" ratio
between belcrank and belhorn by choosing a minor axis length of the ellipse
that is greater than zero. The "bar" version of the ellipse has the
disadvantage that control near neutral is non-existent. In both cases, the
major axis of the ellipse/length of the bar sets the maximum ratio of
belcrank to belhorn. (The amount of differential is the ratio between the
minimum and maximum described above.)

So, the drawback to the "bar" is that it is not wide enough near neutral,
resulting in not enough control deflection, so the remedy is to make the bar
wider. Whether the long end of the bar "picks up" the cable in a perfectly
elliptical manner or not is such a minor difference that my fat feet will
never notice it. Make the "bar" wider by making it a rectangle and the
differential effect will start immediately on deflection away from neutral;
make the bar a diamond and you can enforce a small region near neutral where
the ratio stays low, then increases after the aft portion of the diamond
"picks up" the cable and starts to move it laterally, mimicking your perfect
ellipse with much simpler manufacturing effort. The only real limitation to
the shape of the ellipse/bar/diamond/rectangle cam is that it must force the
cables into convex symmetry about the forward part of the device at all
anticipated deflections so that the cables don't go slack.

Work it out in your favorite modelling software, or go prototype it in
cardboard and thumbtacks and string and convince yourself that it works just
as well with less fabrication effort than machining an elliptical plate with
a groove along its edge (that would be a pricey part indeed!)

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Larry Hamm
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David,
So, how does one achieve a smoothly increasing radius, and
hence the exponential control effect, with a diamond or a
rectangle?? I'm not real clear on that!
Larry Hamm

David J. Gall wrote:

P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be fabricated as
an oval or
ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will work.

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>

Hi Phil,

Yeah I have a Q unibody registered here as a Q-200 because of the J power
and very sexy it is too. I Would hate to cut it.

The way I see it you can get best cruise with aelerons up because that
the posts over the years most of the guys report a few more KTS with the
aelerons up ( and therefore the elevator up a touch).

At the same time aelerons up means more elevator authority which makes for a
better flare and easier tailwheel put down. So you see why I get the idea
that the only real advantage of having a reflexor is to adjust the view over
the nose, and this is worth doing too but not to spoil my sexy unibody.
Aelerons up offers the best of both worlds.

I have experimented with fixed aileron up and fixed aileron flush. I have
found a very noticeable loss in elevator authority (scary) with my aelerons
fixed flush (Norton installation) and consequently I set them up 10mm for
the Jab. But now I need to hold the elevator up a few mm at cruise so I have
reset them flush and will fly when the wind stops howling. Optimum setting
might be somewhere in between.

It is a surprise to me how the reflexor was introduced for the Quickie
without apparently any instructions how or when to use it. Can you imagine
Cessna or the others offering such a powerful device without safety
operating instructions? The upshot is that there are many different opinions
on how and when to use it, basically it is hard to find two opinions the
same and that is a concern. I recall big Al complained he lost elevator
authority in the circuit, before he sold the bird and I would guess the
aelerons were down at the time.

I think that there should be a forum to discuss and finalise and set safety
operating instructions for this device. You and I have a different idea how
it works and one of us is wrong. heh heh and it couldn't possibly be me (or

As for the bellcrank mod I am not seduced by all the acres of technical
jargon on this subject because the objective has been overlooked. The
objective is to get the tailwheel down early and load it with aft elevator
and a stalled canard. When the tailwheel is down and at rolling speeds the
tiny rudder has negligible effect, because it is completely overwhelmed by
the steering done by the wheel on the deck. I could not justify that
particular mod which introduces 5 more fail points but cheers to those who
like it.

I am in favour of the Gall wheel alignment but not sure how to line bore for
the axle and how to realign the brake assembly. I was in peak overload when
it was first suggested for my Q.

Priority for me right now is to finish running in the Jab. It is still tight
but beginning to go for it.

Cheers,

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
britmcman@aol.com
Sent: Monday, 23 October 2006 11:31 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread

Peter:

Do you mean to say that you have a unibody Q2 with no split aft of the main
wing? How do you parallel park at the grocery store? :')

I am beginning to realize why you have so much resistance to this mod. You
don't have access to the work site. I liked being able to pitch the nose
down for approach using the reflexor. I can't tell you what reflexor setting

was best for fastest cruise, but having the reflexor makes the plane
tuneable
and since N870BM has posted some of the fastest speeds on record, I can't
say
that the reflexor system did any harm. Were you able to install the reflexor

mod, you could also install the Jim Bob 6 pack bell crank and you would
probably not regret having done them.

You write that the Q flies faster and also flares better for landing with
the ailerons up. How can it be that the plane flies faster with the ailerons

up, while also, the plane flares better with ailerons up? I think you might
be tricking yourself into believing that both conditions exist with your
present fixed ailerons high condition. In my experience I had no trouble
with
landing reflexor full down (nose down/tail high). I always had sufficient
elevator authority to control pitch attitude so that tail wheel landed first
and
able to hold the canard off the deck till it settled on. At that point did I

pull full reflexors up to kill any aspirations the main wing had for flight
and to encourage tail wheel authority.

could soon become a popular choice for many of the existing Q2s now powered
by Revmaster 2100s.

Cheers,

Phil

Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>

David,
So, how does one achieve a smoothly increasing radius, and hence the exponential control effect, with a diamond or a rectangle?? I'm not real clear on that!
Larry Hamm

David J. Gall wrote:

P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be fabricated as an oval or
ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will work.

Re: [SPAM]Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Jon Finley <jon@...>

Hi Mike,

I don't usually go to full up (nose up) reflex but am close.

Given the comments lately (Mike, Phil), I think I'll try a few approaches
with down reflex (nose down) to see what happens - I've never tried that
before. I'll also do the flight angle versus pitch buck tests - again,
interesting experiment.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Mike Dwyer
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread

Hey Jon,
Did I read that right, you land with full up aileron reflexer?

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>

I have just set my fixed aelerons flush (again). Is anyone else setting
flush aelerons?

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
britmcman@aol.com
Sent: Monday, 23 October 2006 10:57 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Q: Is FULL down reflexor on the ailerons, on 870BM, the same aileron
position as planes without a reflexor installed?

A: No. Full down reflexor on N870BM meant that the trailing edges of the
ailerons were about 3/8" up above the main wing.

Phil

Fuel in foam

Bill <bilfli1@...>

I'm installing a belly board in my Q2 and I discovered some fuel in the foam while trimming the foam away. I got most of the foam out that was soaked in fuel but there is more where I didn't trim away. Has anyone else had this problem?
thing to consider: my airplane has been sitting for about 15 years without fuel in it. I don't think it has a leak, but I'm not sure now.
Any insight/opinion is appreciated.

Bill McCaleb
Tucson, AZ

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Phil Lankford

You wrote:

objective is to get the tailwheel down early and load it with aft elevator
and a stalled canard.

Peter. The elevator is at the wrong end of the craft to make the tail go
down. It has no effect on the downward force applied to the tail. This is
going to turn into a physics class and for some minute degree of force
differences there might be some small amount argued by some.

You are doing something right since you are flying in that Jabiru craft. I
can't knock success, but I still get a since that you absolutely have a
closed mind to the whole 6-pack contributions. In N870BM there was not any reflex
setting that made the aircraft dangerous to fly. Aileron authority was
positive regardless of setting. It just made a lot more things possible and it
definitely helped stick the tail wheel during landing rollout. Your comment
about holding elevator makes me think that your sparrow strainer setting might
be a factor.

How many flight hours do you have on that Jab to-date?

Cheers,

Phil

Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

quickieaircraft

Just remember that the torque you can apply will vary
inversely with the displacement ratio--not that your
feet are torque-limited.

Imraan
UAV systems engineer and pilot in Washington DC
still looking for Q2/Q200

--- "David J. Gall" <David@Gall.com> wrote:

Bob,

Larry Hamm's suggestion is good but it requires
significant angular
displacement of the belcrank to get any substantial
differential.

Consider this alternative: Make your tailcone
belcrank in the shape of the
letter 'K' with the angled legs pointing forward.
The rudder pedal cables
connect to the angled legs, but the rudder and
tailwheel cables connect to
the straight leg. This gives a differential since
the angular displacement
of the belcrank is increased for any given linear
displacement of the cable
the more the angled belcrank leg moves forward in
its arc [d-theta/d-x goes
as 1/cos(theta)].

Similarly, move the cable attachment points on the
rudder pedals aft of the
plane of the rudder pedal pivot so that as the
rudder pedal is pressed
forward, the attachment point arm becomes more
perpendicular to the line of
travel of the cable.

Either of these geometries will induce a
differential movement in the
belcrank; both together will give even more
differential.

The resulting angular differential can be amplified
or reduced by varying
the ratio between the length of the angled legs of
the belcrank and the
effective lengths of the rudder pedal arms (and the
desired throw of the
pedals forward of neutral). The ratio of the length
of the angled legs of
the belcrank to the straight legs and, finally, to
the length of the rudder
and tailwheel belhorns will control the total angle
of the rudder and
tailwheel deflections with rudder pedal
displacement.

David J. Gall
P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be
fabricated as an oval or
ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will
work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight.
(long editorial)

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

"Exponential" differential via mechanics

David J. Gall

Bob,

Larry Hamm's suggestion is good but it requires significant angular
displacement of the belcrank to get any substantial differential.

Consider this alternative: Make your tailcone belcrank in the shape of the
letter 'K' with the angled legs pointing forward. The rudder pedal cables
connect to the angled legs, but the rudder and tailwheel cables connect to
the straight leg. This gives a differential since the angular displacement
of the belcrank is increased for any given linear displacement of the cable
the more the angled belcrank leg moves forward in its arc [d-theta/d-x goes
as 1/cos(theta)].

Similarly, move the cable attachment points on the rudder pedals aft of the
plane of the rudder pedal pivot so that as the rudder pedal is pressed
forward, the attachment point arm becomes more perpendicular to the line of
travel of the cable.

Either of these geometries will induce a differential movement in the
belcrank; both together will give even more differential.

The resulting angular differential can be amplified or reduced by varying
the ratio between the length of the angled legs of the belcrank and the
effective lengths of the rudder pedal arms (and the desired throw of the
pedals forward of neutral). The ratio of the length of the angled legs of
the belcrank to the straight legs and, finally, to the length of the rudder
and tailwheel belhorns will control the total angle of the rudder and
tailwheel deflections with rudder pedal displacement.

David J. Gall
P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be fabricated as an oval or
ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

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

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Phil Lankford

Peter:

Do you mean to say that you have a unibody Q2 with no split aft of the main
wing? How do you parallel park at the grocery store? :')

I am beginning to realize why you have so much resistance to this mod. You
don't have access to the work site. I liked being able to pitch the nose
down for approach using the reflexor. I can't tell you what reflexor setting
was best for fastest cruise, but having the reflexor makes the plane tuneable
and since N870BM has posted some of the fastest speeds on record, I can't say
that the reflexor system did any harm. Were you able to install the reflexor
mod, you could also install the Jim Bob 6 pack bell crank and you would
probably not regret having done them.

You write that the Q flies faster and also flares better for landing with
the ailerons up. How can it be that the plane flies faster with the ailerons
up, while also, the plane flares better with ailerons up? I think you might
be tricking yourself into believing that both conditions exist with your
present fixed ailerons high condition. In my experience I had no trouble with
landing reflexor full down (nose down/tail high). I always had sufficient
elevator authority to control pitch attitude so that tail wheel landed first and
able to hold the canard off the deck till it settled on. At that point did I
pull full reflexors up to kill any aspirations the main wing had for flight
and to encourage tail wheel authority.

could soon become a popular choice for many of the existing Q2s now powered
by Revmaster 2100s.

Cheers,

Phil

Re: quickie web site

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>

Trust me Darrell, you have one username. Please email me off list at HawkiDoug@cox.net

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell Daniels
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] quickie web site

Doug, I have two user names, The correct one is written down with the new
password. I tried them both and neither worked. Thanks Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@cox.net>
To: <Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] quickie web site

> Darrell- try throwing the first index card out before you write the new
> password down on the new index card. Should work fine then.
>
> Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
> A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
> Omaha NE
> N25974
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Darrell Daniels
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:13 AM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] quickie web site
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone but me had trouble with logging onto our web
> site.
> If I do not use the members only section for a while I cannot get in
> without
> getting a new password. I write it down correctly on a index card so I
> will
> not forget it and still I am told it is invalid . Any ideas. Thanks
> Darrell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
>