Date   

Re: Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)

Joseph Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Thanks Patrick. I will check my pile of Contacts to see if I happen to have those issues.

Joseph

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Panzera
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST]Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)


Check issues 39 and 66.

http://www.contactmagazine.com/backissu.html

Pat

> Great! I will look forward to reading more about augmenters. Maybe
> "Kitplanes" has an archive on line that I can access.


Re: Headset & FCC

Chick Masoner <chick@...>
 

Pipeline pilots would be lost without there cell phones to call in the leaks
especially in the production fields. But, I don't know if flying below 300'
AGL counts.



_____


Re: Headset & FCC

Chick Masoner <chick@...>
 

Pipeline pilots would be lost without there cell phones to call in the leaks
especially in the production fields. But, I don't know if flying below 300'
AGL counts.



_____


Re: Headset & FCC

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

This is directly off the FCC (not FAA) website:

"FCC rules currently ban cell phone use after a plane has taken off
because of potential interference to cellular phone networks on the
ground."

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html

But they do plan to change the rule.

I almost always carry one but always turn it off before preflight. In an
emergency I would certainly turn it on, but currently it's illegal to
use one in flight.

Pat

Several comments re cell phones:

1) My first flight instructor always carried a cell phone and said
she
had
used it exactly once to land in controlled airspace with radios out.
I
don't remember the details.


Re: Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Joseph I have it in a zip file but it is 4MB. If you let me have your
offline address I will try it.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 9:47 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST]Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)



Great! I will look forward to reading more about augmenters. Maybe
"Kitplanes" has an archive on line that I can access.

Joseph


Re: Headset & FCC

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Several comments re cell phones:

1) My first flight instructor always carried a cell phone and said she had
used it exactly once to land in controlled airspace with radios out. I
don't remember the details.

2) "cell phones" include both analog and digital; digital includes at
least a couple of protocols. The protocol Verizon uses is called CDMA; in
this system every tower sends out a brief time signal several times per
second; the cell phone decides which signal is best and sends out a signal
each second "this is who I want to talk to." The system routers then
decide which signals to ignore. The problem with signals hitting too many
towers is system overload: the system knows which signals to pay attention
to and which to ignore but you still have to filter out the extraneous
signals. However, this is far easier with digital than analog signals.

3) One problem with digital cell phones is that they will revert to analog
under some conditions. This "feature" allows you to get some signal in
areas that only have analog service (eg: some resort areas here in
California have a single analog cell tower just for the town or
resort). See Craig Steffen's comments below re analog cell phones in the
cockpit.

My son once worked on a software project for a cell phone system; I picked
up bits and pieces of info on the protocols.

Mike Perry

At 08:55 AM 11/2/2006 -0600, you wrote:

Quoting FR Jones <<mailto:seabeevet%40gmail.com>seabeevet@...>:

Shooting from the hip on this, two issues come to mind. First, why would
using a cell phone in a private plane make a difference?
As has already been pointed out here:

The core prohibition is from the FCC, because it would cause your phone
to claim
an active channel on dozens of towers at once, rather than one or two
as is the
design.

The Mythbusters show on the discovery channel tried this Myth out (on the
ground; they weren't allowed to in the air). They built a device that
broadcast broad-band signal on cell frequencies. They couldn't get a
certified
aircraft to react at all.

However, they also built a mock-up of a cockpit with just some surplus
instruments. The digital cell phone signal (1.8 GHz or so) didn't produce any
results. However, analog cell signals (900 MHz range) made the VOR go
haywire.

SO...I think that depending on shielding, in a homebuilt particularly,
an active
analog cell phone on board could very easily cause the VORs to lose
their lock. This would be particularly true in a fiberglass airplane,
which doesn't have the
natural conductive shielding of a metal airplane.

I've always assumed that the cell phone jack on aviation headsets was to call
flight service to activate or close your flight plan while taxiing, or to call
other people while you're on the ground and the engine is running.

Craig Steffen


Re: Q2 Kit for Sale

BARRY AMANDA STEARNS <stearns2559@...>
 

I would be interested in the kit

Barry Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: gmichaelhuffman<mailto:mikehuffman@...>
To: Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Q2 Kit for Sale


A guy contacted me, saying he has a virgin Q2 kit for sale. Here
are some of his words about the project:

"My kit is near Marietta GA, in back-in-the-box status. It is
naturally missing all of the liquid plastics, long beyond useful
life. It is a virgin kit, lots of peripheral things done, though.
It has an extra tinted canopy, some of the Q200 conversion parts
(plans & instructions, cowl halves, but no tapered spars, prop), 2
extra reduced size plans/instruction copies, a mechanical liquid
plastic proportioner, jigs, aluminum hotwire templates, construction
table, some QBA pubs. All in good condition. I'm never going to
get to build it, so it needs a good home. If you are interested, I
can meet you there to show it. I'm in Miami FL, 305-685-0000 (W),
305-502-3695 (Mobile), phlyer48@...<mailto:phlyer48@...>.

Please let me know if anyone there is interested in making an offer
subject to seeing it. There is a boat trailer available which needs
some work but will carry the big box & 2 or 3 of the foam billets.
I think there is a 4th one which would go with it. I need to know
if there is interest or if I should list it on ebay.

Regards, Charles Wirt"

He is wanting $3000 negotiable for the kit. Go for it!

Mike Huffman
816-838-6235


Re: Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Great! I will look forward to reading more about augmenters. Maybe
"Kitplanes" has an archive on line that I can access.


Re: Headset & FCC

wesisberg <wes@...>
 

I agree with others (no, no, no), but I do know a CFI who lost comm
under IFR conditions, spoke to tower on his cell phone, and got in
safely and without repercussions for phone use. (That was his
argument for carrying a directory with tower numbers.)

If you were under IFR or perhaps VFR flight following, your brother
might be able to track your progress himself, e.g.,

http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KLVK

Wes

--- In Q-LIST@..., denpau@... wrote:

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

Dennis








Re: Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Great! I will look forward to reading more about augmenters. Maybe "Kitplanes" has an archive on line that I can access.

Joseph


Re: Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Joseph,

The Norton ejector is purpose built into the base of a Supertrapp megaphone.
It has a side entry and is used to scavenge cooling air through the rotors
and would not suit your application. There was an article in Kitplanes mag
years ago which covered the design of this kind of device and showed
dimension ratios for optimum performance. I will see if I can find it.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Joseph Snow
Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2006 3:14 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST]Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)



Peter,

Thanks again for your perseverance. Do you have a picture or link to the
system?
Joseph

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Canard Root Faring

Joseph a weld bead would do the job best if you can get a sharp edge facing
the exhaust stream. The Norton extractor was made with the end of the
tailpipe crushed and shaped like a rectangular cross. It would be possible
to enclose the whole thing inside the lower cowl?

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Joseph Snow
Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:19 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Canard Root Faring

Peter,
Except for the 1/16" venturi ring, your description of the augmenter setup
sounds like my current setup. The 1/16" ring generates the turbulence? If it
worked, I would be happy to keep it as is. However, I do think the parts
outside of my cowl will be draggy. How do you get the 1/16" ring?...perhaps
lay a weld bead on the inside end of the pipe?

Joseph


Q2 Kit for Sale

gmichaelhuffman <mikehuffman@...>
 

A guy contacted me, saying he has a virgin Q2 kit for sale. Here
are some of his words about the project:

"My kit is near Marietta GA, in back-in-the-box status. It is
naturally missing all of the liquid plastics, long beyond useful
life. It is a virgin kit, lots of peripheral things done, though.
It has an extra tinted canopy, some of the Q200 conversion parts
(plans & instructions, cowl halves, but no tapered spars, prop), 2
extra reduced size plans/instruction copies, a mechanical liquid
plastic proportioner, jigs, aluminum hotwire templates, construction
table, some QBA pubs. All in good condition. I'm never going to
get to build it, so it needs a good home. If you are interested, I
can meet you there to show it. I'm in Miami FL, 305-685-0000 (W),
305-502-3695 (Mobile), phlyer48@....

Please let me know if anyone there is interested in making an offer
subject to seeing it. There is a boat trailer available which needs
some work but will carry the big box & 2 or 3 of the foam billets.
I think there is a 4th one which would go with it. I need to know
if there is interest or if I should list it on ebay.

Regards, Charles Wirt"

He is wanting $3000 negotiable for the kit. Go for it!

Mike Huffman
816-838-6235


Re: stall indicator - Phil's response

Larry Severson
 

At 06:42 AM 11/2/2006, you wrote:

Does a stall indicator work in gusting conditions for landing?`
An AOA indicator always works, but it may show fluctuating AOA during gusting conditions. Then, you merely adapt as you do with the AS indicator under similar conditions.

Basically, a plane will stall at different speeds based on weight and bank angle (could be anywhere from 60 to 90+ MPH), BUT ALWAYS AT THE SAME AOA under all conditions.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: Headset & FCC

craig@...
 

Quoting FR Jones <seabeevet@...>:

Shooting from the hip on this, two issues come to mind. First, why would
using a cell phone in a private plane make a difference?
As has already been pointed out here:

The core prohibition is from the FCC, because it would cause your phone to claim
an active channel on dozens of towers at once, rather than one or two as is the
design.

The Mythbusters show on the discovery channel tried this Myth out (on the
ground; they weren't allowed to in the air). They built a device that
broadcast broad-band signal on cell frequencies. They couldn't get a certified
aircraft to react at all.

However, they also built a mock-up of a cockpit with just some surplus
instruments. The digital cell phone signal (1.8 GHz or so) didn't produce any
results. However, analog cell signals (900 MHz range) made the VOR go haywire.

SO...I think that depending on shielding, in a homebuilt particularly, an active
analog cell phone on board could very easily cause the VORs to lose their lock. This would be particularly true in a fiberglass airplane, which doesn't have the
natural conductive shielding of a metal airplane.

I've always assumed that the cell phone jack on aviation headsets was to call
flight service to activate or close your flight plan while taxiing, or to call
other people while you're on the ground and the engine is running.

Craig Steffen


Re: stall indicator - Phil's response

Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
 

Does a stall indicator work in gusting conditions for landing?

Ryan

--- In Q-LIST@..., britmcman@... wrote:


In a message dated 10/30/2006 6:23:53 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dmperry1012@... writes:

I don't really understand why anyone wants
to install an AOA or a stall indicator of any type on a Quickie
or Q-2xx
other than curiosity


I 'll take this one. Mike, I always wanted to know precisely what
was the
best L/D glide angle as a glider aircraft. In the event of
any "engine out"
scenario, one could hypothetically set up on best angle of attack
and thus be
at an optimum condition for flying the farthest distance over the
ground
regardless of weight conditions. I suspect that the best glide
speed may vary
based on how the aircraft is loaded. If the aircraft is loaded
to about 900
pounds the best glide may be some amount faster or slower than if
the aircraft
is loaded to 1350. Regardless of what the aircraft load happens
to be, the
pilot could set upon best angle and have the greatest opportunity
to make a
greater radius to a potential field.

I experienced a broken prop at 9500' MSL (9000 AGL). By the time
I found
nearest airport, it was still about 12 NM out. I wished I had
such a tool.

Cheers,

Phil
N87TQ Tri-Q
Q-2 Rev




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


Re: Exhaust Augmenter (was Canard Root Faring)

Joseph Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Peter,

Thanks again for your perseverance. Do you have a picture or link to the system?
Joseph

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Canard Root Faring


Joseph a weld bead would do the job best if you can get a sharp edge facing
the exhaust stream. The Norton extractor was made with the end of the
tailpipe crushed and shaped like a rectangular cross. It would be possible
to enclose the whole thing inside the lower cowl?

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Joseph Snow
Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:19 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Canard Root Faring

Peter,
Except for the 1/16" venturi ring, your description of the augmenter setup
sounds like my current setup. The 1/16" ring generates the turbulence? If it
worked, I would be happy to keep it as is. However, I do think the parts
outside of my cowl will be draggy. How do you get the 1/16" ring?...perhaps
lay a weld bead on the inside end of the pipe?

Joseph


Re: Headset & FCC

BARRY AMANDA STEARNS <stearns2559@...>
 

As the Avionics Manager for a FBO in Nebraska I can help answer this. The FCC regulates this because of the potential for "tower hopping". That is sending/receiving from multiple towers that may cause lockups in the network or even worse...to the cellphone companies....misregistered calls...or what we may call "free ones". As far at the cockpit area I have found that a cell phone can, will, and has wiped the GPS receivers out of several name brand panel mount units. We found out the pilot was using his cell phone in each case and the company lead us in that direction. They also didn't warranty the repair of the unit in question either. Besides this issue, I have seen VOR's pull off 10 degrees with a cell phone in its active state. I had the chance to speak to a pilot who was talking on his cell phone and not watching out his windshield and nearly flew up the butt of a Cessna 182 with his Commanche. This is a fairly major concern since in a car you only wreck (in most cases) in the x and y direction...in an aircraft you have that bad z direction that makes you go SPLAT. He said he will never use his phone in the air again. Also, last note I swear, a headset with cell phone tie in have caused excessive loading of certain makes of audio/intercom panels that have lead to premature failure of the audio amp circuits inside. This has to do with impedance and loading that manufacturers did not plan for. This also leads to the company NOT paying for your repair. My 2 1/2 cents worth.

Barry Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: FR Jones<mailto:seabeevet@...>
To: Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset & FCC


Shooting from the hip on this, two issues come to mind. First, why would
using a cell phone in a private plane make a difference? Cars, comercial (on
the ground taxi), boats etc. are all okay. Next, who would know if someone
did use their cell from their private ac?
All answers come from how you ask the question. The definitely "no" answer
may have been intended for a passenger on an airliner in flight... that "no"
comes from the disruption of navaids etc.
Just some thought to think about.
Dick

On 10/20/06, denpau@...<mailto:denpau@...> <denpau@...<mailto:denpau@...>> wrote:
>
> Since, like most of you, I use a cell phone, I was intrigued by the
> advertising of headsets with cell phone connections.
> I had been reading, off and on, about regulations against using a cell in
> flight. It would be great to give my brother a call, 20 minutes out, to
> pick
> me up at the airport.
> I e-mailed the EAA to get some reliable info. The reply was that the FAA
> didn't have any regs against cell use in the air but the FCC says no, no,
> definitely NO!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
>


Re: Canard Root Faring

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Joseph a weld bead would do the job best if you can get a sharp edge facing
the exhaust stream. The Norton extractor was made with the end of the
tailpipe crushed and shaped like a rectangular cross. It would be possible
to enclose the whole thing inside the lower cowl?

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Joseph Snow
Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:19 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Canard Root Faring



Peter,
Except for the 1/16" venturi ring, your description of the augmenter setup
sounds like my current setup. The 1/16" ring generates the turbulence? If it
worked, I would be happy to keep it as is. However, I do think the parts
outside of my cowl will be draggy. How do you get the 1/16" ring?...perhaps
lay a weld bead on the inside end of the pipe?

Joseph


Lockable tailwheels

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Hi David.
As I have mentioned before, I quite like the idea of a lockable full castoring tailwheel. Although you seem to suggest it in your post (below), I presume an enlarged rudder wouldn't really be necessary.
Regards
Allan Farr
P.S. I found the following article quite interesting:

Once you get used to it, you'll find the lockable tailwheel is actually an easier plane to land than the steerable tailwheel. We've flown about six thousand hours on the UPF-7s and Cabin Wacos at the museum and we're always reminded how much more difficult it is with a stearable tailwheel when we climb back into the Stearmans for a solo passenger. Many people feel "claustrophobic" when they get into a lockable tailwheel plane after only flying a stearable tailwheel. By you will find that once you touch down and your straight down the runway, the lockable tailwheel becomes your best friend. You do not want to try and make it work with differential braking as it will stress and shear the pin at the end of the cable going into the wheel assembly. One strong push on a brake when landing on one side and you'll hear a "pop" and then you're permanently locked up until you stop and use a leatherman to pull the pin out so you can pivot the wheel, so don't try and "fib" it around. It ain't made to work that way.

The entire "trick" to make it absolutely easy is one thing only. Always land the plane straight down the runway with whatever it takes. Opposite rudder and stick into the wind like any crosswind landing to insure you are just "straight down the runway." When your "Best Friend" in the rear touches down, you're home free and guaranteed a free ride down the runway without any drift. This is great when there still is a slight breeze from the side or an uneven surface, however, if the plane is bouncing, your best friend is no longer in contact with the ground. It's just like having a fixed keel on a boat. It's a great advantage and not a disadvantage.

When you taxi, experiment with how "little" differential braking it takes so that you don't have to accelerate then slow down, accelerate then slow down. You'll also find, just as with the stearable tailwheel that taxiing into the wind will allow the rudder controls to work due to prop wash to augment the differential braking.

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:58
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics


Ron,

I think the ability to adjust camber and toe as you have done is nice, but
overkill. The only real requirement is that the worst-case scenario -- max
weight, forward CG, steeply crowned runway -- be met with positive camber
and toe. Even slightly negative camber has proved to be manageable, but
more-positive camber and toe is not an issue. If you get zero-zero at max
gross weight, there's nothing wrong with three degrees positive camber at
lighter weight. (The inverse is not true, however.) The tire serviceabilty
that your change provides is definitely convenient, but at what weight
penalty? And how often - really - do you expect that you'll actually adjust
your camber for any particular flight once the airplane is in daily service?
I'm sure you know the term "drill on assembly."

Regarding a larger rudder, no need, but "no harm-no foul" if you do it. Just
keep in mind that putting on a larger rudder is not addressing the problem
of an ineffective tailwheel. You can choose to make the tailwheel effective
or not and still overpower it with a bigger rudder. If you're gonna make a
bigger rudder, you might as well just get a locking tailwheel and be done
with all the complexities of a steerable one. Line it up, lock the
tailwheel, and go. Lock the tailwheel, land, then unlock and use rudder and
differential brakes to steer the castering thing. No more belcranks and
springs and such, just one cable to pull the lock lever. Better not forget
it on landing, though! :)

JMHO,

David J. Gall

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
> On Behalf Of Ron Triano
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics
>
> David and Peter, I sincerely hope my ramblings on the way I
> went about my tailwheel control and wheel alignment has not
> offended anyone, I simply was not pleased with the way others
> have attacked the problems. I have been a building contractor
> for over 40 years and have worked very close with engineers
> of all types so I possibly understand much more than the
> average Q builder as far as structural items are concerned.
> Each time I do something that is not per plans or what
> everyone else is doing I spend much time in research until I
> accept something or abandon it.
>
> I do agree with your points of the rudder bellcrank or horn
> as you call it.
> I also think the two cables you stated would solve any
> questions and could have the springs inside out of the
> airstream. Also I feel the rudder horn is plenty stout for
> the use it will get. I would like to insert other questions
> for your suggestions if I may.
>
> Since most agree that the high speed taxi at landing or
> takeoff seams to be where less tailwheel would be better, why
> not a larger rudder as I have heard on this list by several.
> Due to the elevators on the canard I can see why a 3 point is
> the way for takeoff and landing, not being able to lift the
> tail. These are the areas I would like to hear others chat about.
>
> With you two being engineers, I would like to hear any
> remarks about the way I have done my wheel alignment. I
> really feel very strongly about being able to adjust the
> wheels for alignment rather than a fixed point alignment,
> because no two Q's are the same. Please state exactly what
> you think, I will not be offended. We all need to work
> together to improve the design.
>
>
>
> Ron Triano
>
> South Lake Tahoe, CA
>
> The Sonerai is finished and flying
>
> finishing the Q200


Lockable tailwheels

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Hi David.
As I have mentioned before, I quite like the idea of a lockable full castoring tailwheel. Although you seem to suggest it in your post (below), I presume an enlarged rudder wouldn't really be necessary.
Regards
Allan Farr
P.S. I found the following article quite interesting:

Once you get used to it, you'll find the lockable tailwheel is actually an easier plane to land than the steerable tailwheel. We've flown about six thousand hours on the UPF-7s and Cabin Wacos at the museum and we're always reminded how much more difficult it is with a stearable tailwheel when we climb back into the Stearmans for a solo passenger. Many people feel "claustrophobic" when they get into a lockable tailwheel plane after only flying a stearable tailwheel. By you will find that once you touch down and your straight down the runway, the lockable tailwheel becomes your best friend. You do not want to try and make it work with differential braking as it will stress and shear the pin at the end of the cable going into the wheel assembly. One strong push on a brake when landing on one side and you'll hear a "pop" and then you're permanently locked up until you stop and use a leatherman to pull the pin out so you can pivot the wheel, so don't try and "fib" it around. It ain't made to work that way.

The entire "trick" to make it absolutely easy is one thing only. Always land the plane straight down the runway with whatever it takes. Opposite rudder and stick into the wind like any crosswind landing to insure you are just "straight down the runway." When your "Best Friend" in the rear touches down, you're home free and guaranteed a free ride down the runway without any drift. This is great when there still is a slight breeze from the side or an uneven surface, however, if the plane is bouncing, your best friend is no longer in contact with the ground. It's just like having a fixed keel on a boat. It's a great advantage and not a disadvantage.

When you taxi, experiment with how "little" differential braking it takes so that you don't have to accelerate then slow down, accelerate then slow down. You'll also find, just as with the stearable tailwheel that taxiing into the wind will allow the rudder controls to work due to prop wash to augment the differential braking.

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:58
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics


Ron,

I think the ability to adjust camber and toe as you have done is nice, but
overkill. The only real requirement is that the worst-case scenario -- max
weight, forward CG, steeply crowned runway -- be met with positive camber
and toe. Even slightly negative camber has proved to be manageable, but
more-positive camber and toe is not an issue. If you get zero-zero at max
gross weight, there's nothing wrong with three degrees positive camber at
lighter weight. (The inverse is not true, however.) The tire serviceabilty
that your change provides is definitely convenient, but at what weight
penalty? And how often - really - do you expect that you'll actually adjust
your camber for any particular flight once the airplane is in daily service?
I'm sure you know the term "drill on assembly."

Regarding a larger rudder, no need, but "no harm-no foul" if you do it. Just
keep in mind that putting on a larger rudder is not addressing the problem
of an ineffective tailwheel. You can choose to make the tailwheel effective
or not and still overpower it with a bigger rudder. If you're gonna make a
bigger rudder, you might as well just get a locking tailwheel and be done
with all the complexities of a steerable one. Line it up, lock the
tailwheel, and go. Lock the tailwheel, land, then unlock and use rudder and
differential brakes to steer the castering thing. No more belcranks and
springs and such, just one cable to pull the lock lever. Better not forget
it on landing, though! :)

JMHO,

David J. Gall

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
> On Behalf Of Ron Triano
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics
>
> David and Peter, I sincerely hope my ramblings on the way I
> went about my tailwheel control and wheel alignment has not
> offended anyone, I simply was not pleased with the way others
> have attacked the problems. I have been a building contractor
> for over 40 years and have worked very close with engineers
> of all types so I possibly understand much more than the
> average Q builder as far as structural items are concerned.
> Each time I do something that is not per plans or what
> everyone else is doing I spend much time in research until I
> accept something or abandon it.
>
> I do agree with your points of the rudder bellcrank or horn
> as you call it.
> I also think the two cables you stated would solve any
> questions and could have the springs inside out of the
> airstream. Also I feel the rudder horn is plenty stout for
> the use it will get. I would like to insert other questions
> for your suggestions if I may.
>
> Since most agree that the high speed taxi at landing or
> takeoff seams to be where less tailwheel would be better, why
> not a larger rudder as I have heard on this list by several.
> Due to the elevators on the canard I can see why a 3 point is
> the way for takeoff and landing, not being able to lift the
> tail. These are the areas I would like to hear others chat about.
>
> With you two being engineers, I would like to hear any
> remarks about the way I have done my wheel alignment. I
> really feel very strongly about being able to adjust the
> wheels for alignment rather than a fixed point alignment,
> because no two Q's are the same. Please state exactly what
> you think, I will not be offended. We all need to work
> together to improve the design.
>
>
>
> Ron Triano
>
> South Lake Tahoe, CA
>
> The Sonerai is finished and flying
>
> finishing the Q200