Date   

Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David J. Gall
 

Peter,

Allow me to rebut:

Part of the reason it skids is that the plans ratio moves it too much. At
higher speeds, the tailwheel is quickly and easily pushed past the limiting
slip angle and it begins to skid. Like an all-flying tailplane that has too
much throw, the pilot can push it right past "stall" and it becomes less
effective than it could be were it not stalled. Likewise, the plans ratio
allows the rudder control system to push the tailwheel right on past the
skid limit of the tire (between 3 and 7 degrees, depending on tire type)
when the pilot applies "a little" rudder pressure.

At lower speeds, when the tail can respond and a turning radius can be
accomodated, the amount of deflection can be more without exceeding the
limiting slip angle. So it makes sense to have a differential system. At
higher speeds the smaller throw near center helps to keep from skidding the
tailwheel, actually increasing effectiveness, and at lower speeds the large
throw needed for ramp maneuvering is still available.

If you think it is a lot of complication, consider that your airplane
actually has the opposite, a DEcreasing differential, due to the installed
angle of the rudder pedals and the absence of any thought given to the
design. The cables simply attach to the sides of the rudder pedals, so as
the rudder pedal is pressed forward the amount of linear pull on the cable
actually diminishes for increasing angular displacement of the rudder pedal.


Lack of thought does not imply simplicity; more thoughtful design does not
imply increased complication. I gave a perfectly valid suggestion that
increases the "fail point" count by exactly ZERO while reversing the
bass-ackwards differential that the fine folks at QAC gave you. Simply
change the shape of the one-piece rudder pedal so that the cable attach
point is aft of the hinge axis. This one change will give INcreasing
differential without all the monkey-motion of a belcrank, if you wish, while
still addressing the fundamental issue of an ill-executed design.

I'd wager that there aren't many airplane designers who actually take the
time to think about the linkages they create in their control systems, and
we consumers/pilots pay the price every day. Burt Rutan is not immune from
mess-ups in his designs, and having Tom Jewett do the detail design work on
the Quickie was no guarantee of error detection and correction. Gary LeGare
(the plumber) scaling up the design to two-place certainly didn't add any
particular expertise in the realm of control system design and the ensuing
redesign for mass production was not about refinement, either. So you have a
minimalist system that had no real thought given to it adopted in toto and
you now wish to defend it on the basis of its "simplicity" and limited
number of "fail points"? Hello? It doesn't work right, what about that?

The design itself IS a fail point, witness its failure to prevent the
tailwheel from skidding during the fast part of the ground run. Were it not
for the many, more serious design issues missed by the QAC, we would have
been on about this one, say, twenty years ago, but it has taken us this long
to synthesize a consensus on the JB6Pack to where we can actually start to
talk about fine-tuning. If that warrants poo-pooing, then so be it. Some
things truly aren't worth persuing; this one is, and I knew it in 1997 when
I first published my thoughts on the matter.

Carry on, O gravel-runway reflexor-less single-data-point friend....


David J. Gall
P.S. And your Norton Rotary wasn't a lot of complication for dubious
results...?
P.P.S. When are Jabiru going to finally hire an internal-flow consultant to
design proper cooling for their engines instead of telling owners to burn
'em in for 50-100 hrs until they "loosen up"? Some of the nicest engines,
some of the most pitiful cowls.... :(

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Peter Harris
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:07 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Thanks Larry.

To me it seems like an awful lot of complication for a
dubious result. The sensitivity of the tailwheel steering
increases as the speed reduces. At first touchdown the
aircraft momentum and tail makes it stay straight and any
attempt to deflect it is limited by the flex of the
tailspring and the grip of the tyre, so at first it will skid
rather than deflect the tail.
Later in the ground roll the plans ratio seems right for the
job to me. I think it is just something we learn to do and
get the feel with familiarity.

But I am in favour of most ideas as long as they are not compulsory.

Cheers

Peter


Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Thanks Larry.

To me it seems like an awful lot of complication for a dubious result. The
sensitivity of the tailwheel steering increases as the speed reduces. At
first touchdown the aircraft momentum and tail makes it stay straight and
any attempt to deflect it is limited by the flex of the tailspring and the
grip of the tyre, so at first it will skid rather than deflect the tail.
Later in the ground roll the plans ratio seems right for the job to me. I
think it is just something we learn to do and get the feel with familiarity.

But I am in favour of most ideas as long as they are not compulsory.

Cheers

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Larry Hamm
Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:32 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics



Peter,
No, Bob Farnum wanted a tailwheel which turned faster as more pedal was
applied. Less twitchy when centered or nearly so, strong response toward
the limits.
Larry Hamm

Peter Harris wrote:

Fellers,

Are you really doing all this so you get more rudder authority in rollout?

Peter


Re: Tri Q nebie

GĂ©rard Rouleau <geair@...>
 

Austin,
For the speed limit, in the section about the belly board that was added to my Q-2 construction plans, it says: "We recommend that the board be deployed at a maximum of 110 knots (126 mph). After deployment, a maximum speed of 130 knots (150 mph) should be observed."

Gerard


Richard,

I have the airbrake mod installed. Hadn't heard of the engine fume
problem previously. It seems to be plumbed in pretty tightly but at
100+knots air can get anywhere i suppose.(i don't know if there is a
speed limit on it's use)

Does anyone have any answers on this subject?

Austin


Re: I give!

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

'Onyer Steve that makes two of us.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Steve
Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:14 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] I give!



Me either.......
Steve Ham

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] I give!

Jim I have never had to repair for a ground handling problem either.

Peter

_____

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: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] I give!

Fellas,

Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We
went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and
said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several
builders followed suit and have great handling planes.

As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose
not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I
on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I
think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that
have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are
still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work
because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my
question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground
handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates
more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and
has no basis in fact.

My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and
fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing
their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are
like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are
different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the
pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting
further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route
I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is
logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@msn.com
<mailto:ng%40msn.com> . I
give! Just remember when your ass is
on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought,
there was a fix!

Best Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 Novice


Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>
 

Peter,
No, Bob Farnum wanted a tailwheel which turned faster as more pedal was applied. Less twitchy when centered or nearly so, strong response toward the limits.
Larry Hamm

Peter Harris wrote:

Fellers,
Are you really doing all this so you get more rudder authority in rollout?
Peter


Re: I give!

Steve <sham@...>
 

Me either.......
Steve Ham

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] I give!


Jim I have never had to repair for a ground handling problem either.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] I give!

Fellas,

Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We
went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and
said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several
builders followed suit and have great handling planes.

As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose
not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I
on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I
think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that
have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are
still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work
because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my
question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground
handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates
more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and
has no basis in fact.

My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and
fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing
their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are
like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are
different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the
pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting
further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route
I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is
logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@msn.com. I
give! Just remember when your ass is
on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought,
there was a fix!

Best Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 Novice


Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Fellers,

Are you really doing all this so you get more rudder authority in rollout?

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bob Farnam
Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 4:47 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics



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. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]On Behalf
Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> 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. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> 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
EAA Flight Advisor


My Changes

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

I would surely hope Jim and others don't quit on answering questions about
any part of Q construction. We all need to review all the idea's to arrive
at what we think is for each of us builders. I will give the reasons for the
changes I have made which are factual and can be proven technically if I
cared to take the time.

As far as the extra bellcrank, it is a fact they are adding more parts which
could fail. With my system, (standard tail dragger configuration), I go from
the rudder pedals direct to the rudder bellcrank then through two tailwheel
springs to the tailwheel. I can achieve the same less turning radius of the
tailwheel by just using the small gear big gear theory I explained in my
last post. (Thank you Bob for correcting me as I had it backwards). In
talking with Bob Farnan about this a few years ago he was concerned about
the strength of the rudder bellcrank, and I agree that must be strong enough
to withstand someone standing on the pedals to stop. With Hydraulics you can
skid the tires with very little pressure if you made the geometry at the
pedals right. (But what is the failure rate of the rudder bellcrank). That
is a very easy thing to beef up instead of adding all those bellcranks and
extra parts. Interrupting the rudder control cable in the middle is not my
idea of a safe installation. If there are those that want to go with the
extra parts have at it.

As far as the wheel alignment I would hope we all agree this is a very
important part of construction. Since there are those that are flying with
doing it per plans and those that have done the 6pac mod proves to me one
thing. They both have the correct alignment for their particular Q.
considering total weight on wheels and strength of the canard for spring. My
system allows for adjustment with different strength and or weight. What
adjustment is available with pointing a line to a fixed point at the other
wheel through the axle? So if yours is flying straight just be thankful. I
know for a fact Jim and Bobs go down the runway straight as I have been a
passenger 3 times with him and once with Bob F.

I would not build another one without toe brakes, I am flying a Sonerai
with heal brakes and they suck. It is great I don't need them on the runway,
just for stopping in front of the hangar.

What I have stated here are my ideas that have not flown yet. Just like
those that came up with the 6pac and various other ideas when they have not
yet flown either when they were designed. That is what Experimental is all
about. Enjoy it and learn from others.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200


Re: I give!

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jim I have never had to repair for a ground handling problem either.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] I give!




Fellas,

Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We
went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and
said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several
builders followed suit and have great handling planes.

As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose
not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I
on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I
think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that
have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are
still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work
because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my
question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground
handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates
more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and
has no basis in fact.

My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and
fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing
their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are
like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are
different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the
pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting
further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route
I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is
logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@msn.com. I
give! Just remember when your ass is
on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought,
there was a fix!


Best Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 Novice


Re: I give!

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jim loosen up man. I love your posts because of your great generosity of
spirit.

But don't make the JB6pack compulsory! You don't have a mortgage on new
ideas. There are a lot of clever ideas out there and hopefully will be more.

We are smarter than you think!

Cheers mate !



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] I give!




Fellas,

Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We
went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and
said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several
builders followed suit and have great handling planes.

As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose
not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I
on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I
think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that
have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are
still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work
because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my
question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground
handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates
more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and
has no basis in fact.

My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and
fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing
their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are
like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are
different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the
pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting
further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route
I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is
logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@msn.com. I
give! Just remember when your ass is
on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought,
there was a fix!


Best Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 Novice


Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

Phil Lankford
 

Hello Charlie:

My use of the terms "up" and "down" I have tried to clarify by stating the
position of the trailing edge in relation with the wing's trialing edge. So I
will reiterate in an attempt not to call the reflex position either up" or
"down" since I may have it reversed in terms of how the sailplane folks call
it.

I want to have a nose down attitude upon decent on final. I set there
reflexor control to a forward position. This causes my nose to pitch down because
the main wing is reflexed so that the ailerons trailing edges are down
relative to the main wing. This creates some additional lift in the main wing and
causes the tail to raise / nose to lower.

Upon landing and having three wheels on the deck, the last thing I want to
happen is for the main wing to get airborn for any reason whatsoever other than
upon adding full power. The main wing has been in a state where the wing
had the highest lift potential as described in the previous paragraph. Now
that the plane is a tricycle, I pull the reflex lever back and this causes the
trailing edges of the ailerons to cross neutral and rise above the trailing
edges of the main wing. I'm pretty happy that the main wing is now configured
to have the least amount of lift potential and I am less concerned about
wind gusts causing that portion of the plane from coming up. The tail wheel is
down for the rollout.

So I have attempted to use the terms "Up" and "Down" to describe the effect
on the rear of the aircraft.

Cheer,

Phil


Re: Reflexor

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Dave,

Thanks for your helpful and detailed post re the reflexor. I do understand
that the reflexor and the elevator can be "tuned" for level flight by moving
both in the same direction and I have seen how much the view changes with
the aelerons flush.

I have a couple of questions and comments:

When set down are your aelerons flush?

In the case below you saw a small increase in airspeed when the reflexor was
adjusted for a flush elevator but most report that a small elevator up gives
more airspeed and that makes more sense to me as both the canard and the
wing would be unloaded.? This is another case where there are different
reports about the effect and use of the reflexor and I think it should be
clarified.

< 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 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. >

I have never felt too much reflexed up with a passenger Dave, but need to
use the aeleron (roll) trim.

Right now I am still in the process of finding the best settings for the new
installation

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

Yes but my aelerons are already reflexed up (fixed) for this condition

<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. >



I agree with your idea that the plans elevator trim adjuster is hard to

reach and I have replaced it with a cable adjuster fitted also in the left
quadrant

What it amounts to Dave is that the reflexor is a second pitch trim device ,
an alternative additional to the elevator trim which I am using as
originally planned but it has the advantage that it can be used in
conjunction with the elevator to alter the pitch of the hull. .

< 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>[Peter Harris] Tou love it !



I started to make a reflexer a few years ago and quit because of the access
problem and when I realized that aileron up was best for landing and also
best for fast cruise, but your report is different from others re cruise
settings . Dave Have you tried for fast cruise with elevator and aelerons
both up? I think you should find it goes faster ?.


<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
through for your ground adjustable version of the reflexor right now.
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. >

Is there a link to the Falkner plans? I will look into it again if it can be
done without the saw job.
Thanks Dave,

Peter





Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 825DR

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Harris
Sent: Sun 10/22/2006 5:00 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> 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: I give!

Dave Richardson <dave@...>
 

You know Jim, as I see it, there are at least the following groups out
there:

Those who get it
Those who don't get it... yet
Those who don't want to get it but might
Those who won't get it
Those who don't even understand the question (yet, I hope).

You have something that works even if it is different than what a few
guys "think might" work Those guys are theory without practice. You
and the JB6Pack movement are theory WITH practice. It bothers me when
guys who haven't even put wheel to ground yet argue against something
that is working. We don't know who is reading these emails and making
decisions based on comments from the "theory without practice" group and
not recognising that rather important fact. I'm not against innovation.
I'm not against personalizing a solution. I am against "I am right
(even though I haven't tried it yet.)" especially if they don't preface
their point with the fact that their position is untested.

Jim, you have been a huge evangelist for these improvements. You are
obviously enthusiastic about them and yes you can be politcially
incorrect with the best of us. Just understand that there are more in
your camp than you might know.

Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 825DR

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Patillo
Sent: Mon 10/23/2006 3:10 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] I give!


Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>
 

David,
Works for me. I'd envisioned two plates with beveled edges to form a groove, but your plan would hold the cables more securely.
Besides, I'm quickly running out of the half Eagles!
Larry Hamm

David J. Gall wrote:

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....


Re: Tri Q nebie

austin964404 <austin.rowlands@...>
 

Richard,

I have the airbrake mod installed. Hadn't heard of the engine fume
problem previously. It seems to be plumbed in pretty tightly but at
100+knots air can get anywhere i suppose.(i don't know if there is a
speed limit on it's use)

Does anyone have any answers on this subject?

Austin

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "viggenbuilder2" <richard@...> wrote:

Hi Austin, Farry's is immaculate, I think you will get lots of
useful info from him.
I don't have a reflexer, I have the little tailplane type trimmer
mounted on the fin. I did think about changing it to a reflex, but
advice has been to stick with it. I could do with some rigging
info
if anyone has it please.
Has yours got the rear belly airbrake mod by the main gear leg?
I'm
thinking that it may be worthwhile for short runways like we get
in
UK, but advice is mixed. One point made was that it lets the
engine
fumes straight in the cockpit. You might like to ask farry if he
has
this problem, or is his box sealed?
Filling and sanding of defects. I have been at that for a couple
of
weeks now, just on the tailcone at first to experiment. I'm using
West epoxy with a dryish mix of 401 ultralight filler which seems
to
bond quite well, and gives a fairly hard surface which sands well,
but possibly not quite so quick as polyester type fillers. I will
float it over with primer and a finish of two pack poly. Then if
that
goes well I'll use the same process on the Fuselage.
Happy Sanding.

Richard Thomson
TriQ G-BMFN
Weston S Mare UK
richard@...







--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "austin964404" <austin.rowlands@>
wrote:

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??

Tell us more about your plane and what your plans are for it.

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: the Official Runway Distance thread

One Sky Dog
 

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





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.

I am really happy to read about your progress with the Jabiru engine. this
could soon become a popular choice for many of the existing Q2s now powered
by Revmaster 2100s.

Cheers,

Phil
Phil,

I am confused, "reflex" in an airfoil is a reverse curvature. Full up
reflexer means the trailing edge is up just like reflexed flaps on a sailplane.
What attitude the plane assumes may be different depending on the planfrom of
the airplane.

I assume that with the ailerons up the tail is lower than if the ailerons
are flush.

Whereas reflexer full down should mean that the airfoil has more camber and
produces more lift aft of the CG and a nose down tail high attitude.

I read both of your posts and you seem to be reversed on some points. I do
not have a reflexor but have reset the ailerons a couple of times and noted the
effect.

Regards,

Charlie


Re: I give!

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Hey Jim:

Lighten up. Most of us are convinced, most of the advice I see comes down
to: If you are starting fresh do the JB6Pack AND the Gall wheel
alignment. If you are further along you may have to make choices; If you
have a "uni-body" Q2 you may have to make a hard choices.

Then there are a few hard heads, and a few people looking for the last knot
who want to do something different. My computer has a delete button for
the stuff I don't care about.

LIGHTEN UP -- We really do appreciate your efforts.

Mike Perry

At 07:10 PM 10/23/2006 +0000, you wrote:


Fellas,

Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We
went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and
said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several
builders followed suit and have great handling planes.

As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose
not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I
on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I
think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that
have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are
still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work
because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my
question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground
handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates
more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and
has no basis in fact.

My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and
fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing
their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are
like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are
different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the
pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting
further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route
I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is
<mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com>logistics_engineering@msn.com. I
give! Just remember when your ass is
on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought,
there was a fix!


Best Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 Novice


Re: Tri Q nebie

Richard Thomson
 

Hi Austin, Farry's is immaculate, I think you will get lots of
useful info from him.
I don't have a reflexer, I have the little tailplane type trimmer
mounted on the fin. I did think about changing it to a reflex, but
advice has been to stick with it. I could do with some rigging info
if anyone has it please.
Has yours got the rear belly airbrake mod by the main gear leg? I'm
thinking that it may be worthwhile for short runways like we get in
UK, but advice is mixed. One point made was that it lets the engine
fumes straight in the cockpit. You might like to ask farry if he has
this problem, or is his box sealed?
Filling and sanding of defects. I have been at that for a couple of
weeks now, just on the tailcone at first to experiment. I'm using
West epoxy with a dryish mix of 401 ultralight filler which seems to
bond quite well, and gives a fairly hard surface which sands well,
but possibly not quite so quick as polyester type fillers. I will
float it over with primer and a finish of two pack poly. Then if that
goes well I'll use the same process on the Fuselage.
Happy Sanding.

Richard Thomson
TriQ G-BMFN
Weston S Mare UK
richard@cloudland.co.uk







--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "austin964404" <austin.rowlands@...>
wrote:

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??

Tell us more about your plane and what your plans are for it.

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: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

Larry,
I see what you are talking about. Next step would be a paper doll sim of the
action as David suggested. I'm not sure the rudder response should be
"exponential", maybe only the tailwheel steering response.
Bob F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Larry Hamm
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:14 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


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@yahoogroups.com
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


I give!

Jim Patillo
 

Fellas,

Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We
went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and
said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several
builders followed suit and have great handling planes.

As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose
not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I
on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I
think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that
have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are
still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work
because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my
question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground
handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates
more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and
has no basis in fact.

My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and
fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing
their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are
like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are
different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the
pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting
further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route
I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is
logistics_engineering@msn.com. I give! Just remember when your ass is
on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought,
there was a fix!


Best Regards,
Jim Patillo Q200 Novice