Date   

Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?

One Sky Dog
 

In a message dated 11/30/2006 8:22:46 PM Mountain Standard Time,
bjaphd@... writes:

Since I am seriously considering building one of these type of
aircraft, I am just curios if anyone has done it, of if there are
reasons I am not aware of that would make it hard to design into
these aircraft? (other than the cost and weight hits, which I am
already aware of). I presume attachment points and weight and
balance issues would be the primary difficulty?

Thanks in advance for any opinions offered.

Brian



Brian,
The company that developed the BRS for Cirrus and the hang glider/ultralight
comunity has spent millions developing these systems. In addtion to the
dollers Jim Handbury died in a development effort in a Cessna fitted with a BRS.
These are not trivial efforts to develop a reliable system.

The best approach for your non flying passenger is to take a mini course in
the basics of flying and landing an airplane.

A lot of people like to think that the mods they do are in accordance to the
"exprimental" nature of homebuilt aircraft. However most of the stuff I read
on these lists do not play out in the rigor of experimentation. In order to
do an experiment you must have a test plan to verify if your results match
your theory that the experiment was based. The BRS was developed by such
rigiorus experimentation with tests to verify success or failure.

I am not against BRS systems I have one a one person system which I
purchased after I was blown out of the sky by clear air turbulance. My hand deployed
parachute was comprimised as it was deploying and failed to deploy. Resulting
in a lucky crash which I survived.

When you activate an emergancy system you trade one set of risks for another
set of risks. This is evedinced by the Cirrius BRS system history where the
system was deployed and the end game did not result in survivors.

This is my opinion on the subject, and I stand that with out a redesign of
the airplane to accomidate a BRS and the associated static and flying tests of
the developed system the results would not be any safer than a Q with
nothing.

Regards,

One Sky Dog aka Charlie Johnson

550 hrs unpowered sport aircraft, 760 hrs general aviation


Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?

Al Renter <drifter@...>
 

I talked with one of the guys from BRS several months ago about this very same thing. He indicated to me that there was someone working on this at the timeand thought it would be feasable to do so.
The attachment points and molding the straps in the fuse would be the biggest issues to me and if you were in the process of building an airplane it would me much less hassle. IMO.
I'm still going to try to build one into my dragonfly as time permits and i get some other issues taken care of.

Al

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hole
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?


Interesting... The BRS came along long after the present Q design so
you will be making design changes. I would suggest we not debate
the issue of chutes but be willing to explore the possibilities.

The attachment will be an issue. When the chute deploys there will
be a large impact load on the attachment. They will need to be very
sturdy and spread the load far enough so that the straps do not just
pull free.

The BRS guys may be your best resource. You should be able to
compensate for the balance by moving the battery sufficiently
forward.

I would suggest you spend some time with a flying Q and a mockup of
the BRS install pack to get some ideas how you could mount it, if it
will fit at all.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "bjaphd" <bjaphd@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen mention of
> it in my few months of monitoring the Q and Dfly lists, and I
didn't
> find anything specific to the Q or Dfly in a google search. I did
> find some information about BRS in some other canard designs, but
> not a Q or Dfly.
>
> I know there are some strong opinions for and against the BRS in
> general, which have been well hashed out with respect to other
> aircraft. I am not interested in going over that debate once
again,
> I have simply made the personal choice that I would like my non-
> pilot passengers to have an option if I should happen to stroke
out
> in the midst of a flight one day.
>
> Since I am seriously considering building one of these type of
> aircraft, I am just curios if anyone has done it, of if there are
> reasons I am not aware of that would make it hard to design into
> these aircraft? (other than the cost and weight hits, which I am
> already aware of). I presume attachment points and weight and
> balance issues would be the primary difficulty?
>
> Thanks in advance for any opinions offered.
>
> Brian
>


Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?

Al Renter <drifter@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hole
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?


Interesting... The BRS came along long after the present Q design so
you will be making design changes. I would suggest we not debate
the issue of chutes but be willing to explore the possibilities.

The attachment will be an issue. When the chute deploys there will
be a large impact load on the attachment. They will need to be very
sturdy and spread the load far enough so that the straps do not just
pull free.

The BRS guys may be your best resource. You should be able to
compensate for the balance by moving the battery sufficiently
forward.

I would suggest you spend some time with a flying Q and a mockup of
the BRS install pack to get some ideas how you could mount it, if it
will fit at all.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "bjaphd" <bjaphd@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen mention of
> it in my few months of monitoring the Q and Dfly lists, and I
didn't
> find anything specific to the Q or Dfly in a google search. I did
> find some information about BRS in some other canard designs, but
> not a Q or Dfly.
>
> I know there are some strong opinions for and against the BRS in
> general, which have been well hashed out with respect to other
> aircraft. I am not interested in going over that debate once
again,
> I have simply made the personal choice that I would like my non-
> pilot passengers to have an option if I should happen to stroke
out
> in the midst of a flight one day.
>
> Since I am seriously considering building one of these type of
> aircraft, I am just curios if anyone has done it, of if there are
> reasons I am not aware of that would make it hard to design into
> these aircraft? (other than the cost and weight hits, which I am
> already aware of). I presume attachment points and weight and
> balance issues would be the primary difficulty?
>
> Thanks in advance for any opinions offered.
>
> Brian
>


Re: Grass runways

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Alan I was based at Caboolture for a couple of years and grass is great . It
helps to slow the ground roll and no problem with take off. I landed on wet
grass a couple of times and once the tyres dragged in soft wet section but
not enough to you know what.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2006 6:46 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Grass runways



Does anyone have experience of operating a Q off grass?
Allan Farr
Q2


Re: anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?

Richard Hole <rickhole@...>
 

Interesting... The BRS came along long after the present Q design so
you will be making design changes. I would suggest we not debate
the issue of chutes but be willing to explore the possibilities.

The attachment will be an issue. When the chute deploys there will
be a large impact load on the attachment. They will need to be very
sturdy and spread the load far enough so that the straps do not just
pull free.

The BRS guys may be your best resource. You should be able to
compensate for the balance by moving the battery sufficiently
forward.

I would suggest you spend some time with a flying Q and a mockup of
the BRS install pack to get some ideas how you could mount it, if it
will fit at all.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "bjaphd" <bjaphd@...> wrote:

Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen mention of
it in my few months of monitoring the Q and Dfly lists, and I
didn't
find anything specific to the Q or Dfly in a google search. I did
find some information about BRS in some other canard designs, but
not a Q or Dfly.

I know there are some strong opinions for and against the BRS in
general, which have been well hashed out with respect to other
aircraft. I am not interested in going over that debate once
again,
I have simply made the personal choice that I would like my non-
pilot passengers to have an option if I should happen to stroke
out
in the midst of a flight one day.

Since I am seriously considering building one of these type of
aircraft, I am just curios if anyone has done it, of if there are
reasons I am not aware of that would make it hard to design into
these aircraft? (other than the cost and weight hits, which I am
already aware of). I presume attachment points and weight and
balance issues would be the primary difficulty?

Thanks in advance for any opinions offered.

Brian


anyone got a BRS in a Q or a Dfly?

bjaphd <bjaphd@...>
 

Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen mention of
it in my few months of monitoring the Q and Dfly lists, and I didn't
find anything specific to the Q or Dfly in a google search. I did
find some information about BRS in some other canard designs, but
not a Q or Dfly.

I know there are some strong opinions for and against the BRS in
general, which have been well hashed out with respect to other
aircraft. I am not interested in going over that debate once again,
I have simply made the personal choice that I would like my non-
pilot passengers to have an option if I should happen to stroke out
in the midst of a flight one day.

Since I am seriously considering building one of these type of
aircraft, I am just curios if anyone has done it, of if there are
reasons I am not aware of that would make it hard to design into
these aircraft? (other than the cost and weight hits, which I am
already aware of). I presume attachment points and weight and
balance issues would be the primary difficulty?

Thanks in advance for any opinions offered.

Brian


Re: Grass runways

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

Clio Crop Care the dealer I bought my kit from operated a grass strip and it was no problem for a small wheel Q200. I've been on about 4 different grass strips, maybe 10 total grass landings. My opinion is that there are too many unknowns on grass but if you know the condition of the field then it is only slightly more risky to operate off grass. I just don't like walking the field before each take off...
Mike Q200


Allan Farr wrote:

Does anyone have experience of operating a Q off grass?
Allan Farr
Q2


Grass runways

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Does anyone have experience of operating a Q off grass?
Allan Farr
Q2


Re: Tail wheels

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jeff

I can only describe what I have and I understand from my builder that it
came from a glider parts supply shop.

The wheel is one piece alum but no trouble fitting the tyre by locating one
bead into the centre of the wheel which is recessed. I could not find a
brand name on the rim. It has two ball race wheel bearings. The tyres are
200X50 Cheng Shin. I think there would be a few wheels to choose from in
glider parts.

Another advantage of the pneumatic tyre is that it is silent.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Letempt, Jeffrey MR
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2006 1:00 AM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels



Peter,

Do you know of a small light weight relatively inexpensive pneumatic
tailwheel that will work on a Q or Dragonfly?

Jeff


_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Peter Harris
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels

Fellers,

In my opinion the source of most ground handling problems is a case of PIO
and requires close attention to the far end of the runway. It is all too
easy if there is a bump or distraction, to shift attention to the foreground
and then PIO will happen.

I think it is important to decide if you are going to steer with the tail
wheel , or steer with the brakes. (The rudder will be relatively
ineffective) Any confusion about that is another recipe for PIO.

If it is decided to steer with the tail wheel then a grippy pneumatic tyre
is my choice. It will slip and the tail spring will flex enough to
accommodate any excessive input early in the roll and it becomes more
effective as the ground roll continues.

If it is decided to use brakes for steering be aware that the tail will
easily lift and this will mean a loss of control aft of the CG.

During acceleration inertia force acts aft of CG and the aircraft is stable
and easily steered but during deceleration the inertia is acting forward and
will pull the aircraft off line unless the tailwheel is securely gripping
the tarmac. The use of brakes at this time will add to the forward
destabilizing torque and with a loss of tailwheel contact that is when
trouble can begin. But using full aft elevator during the ground roll helps
to keep weight aft of CG and to load the tail wheel for stability.

The smartest part of our brain is the brain stem which is automatically
programmed to ride a bike or steer a Quickie and we can learn to use all
kinds of equipment in this way and never be able to really explain how it is
done. Each Qdragger driver is familiar with his own set up and will swear by
it. But IMO it is best to think about the physics and try to keep your bird
as simple as possible and don't forget the role of the pilot in PIO.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 6:50 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels

Thanks Mike. Less sensitivity to cracks, debris, etc, is presumably partly
because of the rounded profile of the pneumatic tyre as opposed to the
squared off profile of the solid tyre.
Regards
Allan Farr
Q2 Rev (maybe flying next yr)

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 14:53
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels

Allan:

I think what happened is that Jim Hamm, Bob Farnum and Jim Patillo were
looking for a way to install a tailwheel which was steerable over a narrow
range and otherwise full swivel. The available model happened to be
pneumatic.

The pneumatic tire might be more grippy but it is also less sensitive to
cracks, grooves and debris on the runway.

This is my understanding from listening to Jim P and Bob over the last
several years, I hope it's not too inaccurate.

Mike Perry
Not flying and currently not building :-(

At 03:46 PM 11/28/2006 +1300, you wrote:

If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize the
tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing the
standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go against
that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
Allan Farr
Q2


Re: Accident of N218E*

JMasal@...
 

I heard from witnesses who know about my Quickie which I finished up at NW
Regional Airport about 12 mi. south of Denton that they saw a Q on a long
takeoff roll. This is a slightly dog-eared asphalt strip with enough distance for
a Q (I saw a couple of King Airs go in and out a time or two). The ship
appeared to lift and slam back down on the left side. They think he lost some of
the prop at least. There are trees at the end and they felt he honked it off
to get over then continued limping out of sight. He probably went back to
Denton where they think he was based and maybe he crunched it further when he
landed there. Live and learn.

j.


Full swivel Tail wheel

quickieflying <quickieflying@...>
 

If anyone is needing one of these tail wheel setups I have two new ones never used like the ones
Jeff pointed out http://musclebiplane.org/htmlfile/tailwhls.php one is already powder coated
white, both have solid 6" wheels.

Contact me off-line docrw@...

David Hiatt


Re: Tail wheels

jeffs912ex@...
 

Jeff,

Matco makes a small pneumatic tailwheel, saw it at their display at the
Oshkosh show.
Try _www.matcomfg.com_ (http://www.matcomfg.com)

Jeff Sell


Re: Tail wheels

Letempt, Jeffrey MR <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

Peter,

Do you know of a small light weight relatively inexpensive pneumatic
tailwheel that will work on a Q or Dragonfly?

Jeff


_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Peter Harris
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels



Fellers,

In my opinion the source of most ground handling problems is a case of PIO
and requires close attention to the far end of the runway. It is all too
easy if there is a bump or distraction, to shift attention to the foreground
and then PIO will happen.

I think it is important to decide if you are going to steer with the tail
wheel , or steer with the brakes. (The rudder will be relatively
ineffective) Any confusion about that is another recipe for PIO.

If it is decided to steer with the tail wheel then a grippy pneumatic tyre
is my choice. It will slip and the tail spring will flex enough to
accommodate any excessive input early in the roll and it becomes more
effective as the ground roll continues.

If it is decided to use brakes for steering be aware that the tail will
easily lift and this will mean a loss of control aft of the CG.

During acceleration inertia force acts aft of CG and the aircraft is stable
and easily steered but during deceleration the inertia is acting forward and
will pull the aircraft off line unless the tailwheel is securely gripping
the tarmac. The use of brakes at this time will add to the forward
destabilizing torque and with a loss of tailwheel contact that is when
trouble can begin. But using full aft elevator during the ground roll helps
to keep weight aft of CG and to load the tail wheel for stability.

The smartest part of our brain is the brain stem which is automatically
programmed to ride a bike or steer a Quickie and we can learn to use all
kinds of equipment in this way and never be able to really explain how it is
done. Each Qdragger driver is familiar with his own set up and will swear by
it. But IMO it is best to think about the physics and try to keep your bird
as simple as possible and don't forget the role of the pilot in PIO.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 6:50 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels

Thanks Mike. Less sensitivity to cracks, debris, etc, is presumably partly
because of the rounded profile of the pneumatic tyre as opposed to the
squared off profile of the solid tyre.
Regards
Allan Farr
Q2 Rev (maybe flying next yr)

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 14:53
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels

Allan:

I think what happened is that Jim Hamm, Bob Farnum and Jim Patillo were
looking for a way to install a tailwheel which was steerable over a narrow
range and otherwise full swivel. The available model happened to be
pneumatic.

The pneumatic tire might be more grippy but it is also less sensitive to
cracks, grooves and debris on the runway.

This is my understanding from listening to Jim P and Bob over the last
several years, I hope it's not too inaccurate.

Mike Perry
Not flying and currently not building :-(

At 03:46 PM 11/28/2006 +1300, you wrote:

If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize the
tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing the
standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go against
that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
Allan Farr
Q2


Re: Flight Test

Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
 

Mike,
I do have an oil separator, but it is connected to the vacuum pump.
The crankcase vent a direct tube. I did add the brass tube to the
elbow though. I need to get rid of the vacuum system all together and
get a Dynon (sp).

Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 36.3 hours
Luana, IA.

On Nov 27, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Mike Dwyer wrote:

Keep up the reports Kevin!

Oil loss... do you have an oil separator, I tried to get by without
one
and found that I really need it. The breather elbow that goes into the
case, I put a brass extension on mine, maybe 2" longer than the
original. That plus the oil separator = clean belly even with over 6Qt
of oil. Look up aerobatic breather elbow...

Heavy load, ya, from single place to gross there is a significant
firmer
arrival when heavy. I carry 5 mph more speed when heavy.

Mike Q200 N3QP

Kevin Boddicker wrote:
22 Nov 06
Todays flight is to start gross weight testing. The aircraft weight
was 1096 lbs. Fifty pounds in the right seat, which I have had there
since first flight, and full fuel. CG 43.72 inches. CG range 42 to
47.2 inches.
TO on 17 was normal with light wind. TO roll was extended somewhat
due to the higher weight. Not much, but did notice a slower
acceleration.
Climb out was normal to 3500 ft. From there I did climbs and
descents
of 500 feet and timed each at different airspeeds. Best climb was at
95 mph was 638 fpm. Best descent was 85 mph of 769 fpm.,
Worst climb was at 110 mph of 526 fpm, and worst descent was 967 fpm
at 110 mph.
Pitch buck power off was at 78 mph. All speeds are indicated.
Returned to pattern for landing on 17. Landing was not prefect, but
OK. I touched down sooner that I had anticipated. Not a rough
landing
just a bit of a surprise to be on the ground.
Taxied to the hanger. As I always do, I checked the bell of the
plane
for oil. It seems to have settled on five and one forth quarts of
oil. The the rest it throws out. The belly was clean. Really clean.
My fuel vent tube was GONE. The prop blast had sucked fuel out the
stub and washed the belly. I pushed the plane in, and went looking
for the tube. It was about 20 ft from the hanger door, near where I
taxied in. It turns out I had used a piece of aluminum tube that was
only .014 wall thickness. It was not heavy enough. It has been
replaced with versa tube of the correct weight. Happily it was warm
enough on the weekend to flox in another tube.
Ready for the next flight!!!

Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 36.3 hours
Luana, IA.



Re: Tail wheels

Ron <rondefly@...>
 

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Letempt, Jeffrey MR"
<jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:

Allan,

I do not think the Aviation Products Incorporated tailwheels are
pneumatic,
I think they use solid rubber ones.

http://musclebiplane.org/htmlfile/tailwhls.php
<http://musclebiplane.org/htmlfile/tailwhls.php>
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/homebuilder_tailwheel.ph
p
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/homebuilder_tailwheel.p
hp>

Jeff
They are solid, I have one.

Ron Triano
_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:47 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels



If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize
the
tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing
the
standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go
against
that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
Allan Farr
Q2

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






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


Re: Tail wheels

Larry Severson
 

In my opinion the source of most ground handling problems is a case of PIO
and requires close attention to the far end of the runway. It is all too
easy if there is a bump or distraction, to shift attention to the foreground
and then PIO will happen.
After a considerable amount of both smooth and wild taxi and landing trips, I find that ALL of my problems have been due to a dragging brake on one side (left in my case). Without a dragging brake, the Q2 is a docile animal that tracks straight down the runway.


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


Re: Tail wheels

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Fellers,

In my opinion the source of most ground handling problems is a case of PIO
and requires close attention to the far end of the runway. It is all too
easy if there is a bump or distraction, to shift attention to the foreground
and then PIO will happen.

I think it is important to decide if you are going to steer with the tail
wheel , or steer with the brakes. (The rudder will be relatively
ineffective) Any confusion about that is another recipe for PIO.

If it is decided to steer with the tail wheel then a grippy pneumatic tyre
is my choice. It will slip and the tail spring will flex enough to
accommodate any excessive input early in the roll and it becomes more
effective as the ground roll continues.

If it is decided to use brakes for steering be aware that the tail will
easily lift and this will mean a loss of control aft of the CG.

During acceleration inertia force acts aft of CG and the aircraft is stable
and easily steered but during deceleration the inertia is acting forward and
will pull the aircraft off line unless the tailwheel is securely gripping
the tarmac. The use of brakes at this time will add to the forward
destabilizing torque and with a loss of tailwheel contact that is when
trouble can begin. But using full aft elevator during the ground roll helps
to keep weight aft of CG and to load the tail wheel for stability.

The smartest part of our brain is the brain stem which is automatically
programmed to ride a bike or steer a Quickie and we can learn to use all
kinds of equipment in this way and never be able to really explain how it is
done. Each Qdragger driver is familiar with his own set up and will swear by
it. But IMO it is best to think about the physics and try to keep your bird
as simple as possible and don't forget the role of the pilot in PIO.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 6:50 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels



Thanks Mike. Less sensitivity to cracks, debris, etc, is presumably partly
because of the rounded profile of the pneumatic tyre as opposed to the
squared off profile of the solid tyre.
Regards
Allan Farr
Q2 Rev (maybe flying next yr)

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 14:53
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels

Allan:

I think what happened is that Jim Hamm, Bob Farnum and Jim Patillo were
looking for a way to install a tailwheel which was steerable over a narrow
range and otherwise full swivel. The available model happened to be
pneumatic.

The pneumatic tire might be more grippy but it is also less sensitive to
cracks, grooves and debris on the runway.

This is my understanding from listening to Jim P and Bob over the last
several years, I hope it's not too inaccurate.

Mike Perry
Not flying and currently not building :-(

At 03:46 PM 11/28/2006 +1300, you wrote:

If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize the
tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing the
standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go against
that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
Allan Farr
Q2


Re: Tail wheels

Letempt, Jeffrey MR <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

Allan,

I do not think the Aviation Products Incorporated tailwheels are pneumatic,
I think they use solid rubber ones.

http://musclebiplane.org/htmlfile/tailwhls.php
<http://musclebiplane.org/htmlfile/tailwhls.php>
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/homebuilder_tailwheel.php
<http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/homebuilder_tailwheel.php>

Jeff

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Allan Farr
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:47 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels



If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize the
tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing the
standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go against
that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
Allan Farr
Q2


Re: Tail wheels

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Thanks Mike. Less sensitivity to cracks, debris, etc, is presumably partly because of the rounded profile of the pneumatic tyre as opposed to the squared off profile of the solid tyre.
Regards
Allan Farr
Q2 Rev (maybe flying next yr)

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 14:53
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail wheels


Allan:

I think what happened is that Jim Hamm, Bob Farnum and Jim Patillo were
looking for a way to install a tailwheel which was steerable over a narrow
range and otherwise full swivel. The available model happened to be
pneumatic.

The pneumatic tire might be more grippy but it is also less sensitive to
cracks, grooves and debris on the runway.

This is my understanding from listening to Jim P and Bob over the last
several years, I hope it's not too inaccurate.

Mike Perry
Not flying and currently not building :-(

At 03:46 PM 11/28/2006 +1300, you wrote:

>If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize the
>tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing the
>standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go against
>that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
>Allan Farr
>Q2


Re: Tail wheels

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Allan:

I think what happened is that Jim Hamm, Bob Farnum and Jim Patillo were
looking for a way to install a tailwheel which was steerable over a narrow
range and otherwise full swivel. The available model happened to be
pneumatic.

The pneumatic tire might be more grippy but it is also less sensitive to
cracks, grooves and debris on the runway.

This is my understanding from listening to Jim P and Bob over the last
several years, I hope it's not too inaccurate.

Mike Perry
Not flying and currently not building :-(

At 03:46 PM 11/28/2006 +1300, you wrote:

If it's true that "Part of what the JB 6-pack does is desensitize the
tailwheel to avoid over-controlling", it seems to me that changing the
standard solid tail wheel for a more grippy pneumatic one would go against
that argument (by increasing the sensitivity).
Allan Farr
Q2