Date   

Re: Brakes

MartinErni@...
 

I think they were just trying to keep the price down.
Earnest



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


Re: Nose Gear Shimmy

Bruce Crain
 

Ok Guys I feel it's time to step in here on the nose gear shimmy.
If'n the hangy down part right above the fork and the fork itsef' is
not cambered 3 degrees back at the top you will get shimmy. The bottom
is forward of the top. I believe this is in the plans. Also the old
smaller nose gear tube may be a little bit conducive to shimmy as it is
a bit of a noodle. Some have had a shimmy due to the welds breaking
loose and separating the tube from the plate at the firewall or the
plate itself could be loose on the firewall.
It is just the opposite for a tail dragger. The top of the bolt going
through the fork on a tail dragger should be forward of the bottom of
the bolt or it will be terribly destabilizing.

Oooooooh I'm goooooood!!!
Bruski Crain







________________________________________________________________________
Interested in getting caught up on today's news?
Click here to checkout USA TODAY Headlines.
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=198954&u=http://www.usatoday.com/news/front.htm?csp=24


Re: Lakeland Sun N Fun Report

JMasal@...
 

I'll look fer yew an da mizzus Satiddy Mike.
Arriving Tues. Lemme know if I need galloshes.

j.



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


Re: Nose Gear Shimmy

James Doyle <jdoyle1941@...>
 

I have been following this nose gear shimmy thread but possibly not closely enough. Has any one mentioned the possibility of the rake angle of the nose gear pivot? This should be tipped to the back by 2 or 3 degrees or you will have the old shopping cart wheel shimmy and it can be quite exciting in its extreme.

Jim Doyle
ex of N56DW

----- Original Message -----
From: JohntenHave
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:08 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy


Hi Mark,

Re weight, we are talking grams.

Re Vibrations, No, I am having the devil's own job finding a cause
seeing as there is no vibration...;-) but I will keep looking...

John

--- In Q-LIST@..., "mailbox@..." <wingnut@...> wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I think that I'll stick with the plans for now. But I'll keep the
dampener idea in mind. I just want a safe, affordable and fast
airplane. To do that I need to keep the weight in check.
>
> Have you been able to locate the cause of your vibration?
>
> Mark
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: johntenhave@...
> Date: 04/11/2007 20:47
> To:
> Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> my Vari-Eze and My Long-Eze both have them. I cannot comment on the
> Long yet but the Vari-Eze is trouble and shimmy free.
>
> If you want I think that I can extract the relevant section of the
> plans and send you drawings of well proven systems.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "mailbox@" <wingnut@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > You are correct the Tri Q200 plans did not call for a shimmy
> dampener system. However if you plan on installing one let me know how
> it works. My Tri Q200 uses a caster nose wheel without a shimmy
> dampener system. I'm close to taxi testing and hope to fine out how
> well the little nose gear holds up. I'lll bench mark off of your
> success.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ----Original Message----
> > From: johntenhave@
> > Date: 04/11/2007 17:11
> > To:
> > Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok,
> >
> > if those are the top three reasons, I am guessing that the nose gear
> > does not have a shimmy damper?
> >
> > John
> >
> > --- In Q-LIST@..., "mailbox@" <wingnut@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tri Q200 Family,
> > > This is to the gentleman that wrote in asking for information on
> > take off speeds for the Tri-Q200.
> > > What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmy
> > problem. While there are several things that will cause the nose
> > wheel to shimmy, IÃf¢Ã,Â?Ã,ÂTm only going to talk about the top
three.
> > > 1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft use
> > Nitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water
> > intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing
> > your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor
> > and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing.
> > An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high
> > speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds)
> > > A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from your
> > valve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire.
> > > B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water,
> > ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help
> > push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can
> > cause an out of balance condition.
> > >
> > > 2.) The tire is out-of- round.
> > > A: Raise the nose of the aircraft and spin the nose tire. (You
> > can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.)
> > Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a
> > high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct
> > this type of condition.
> > > B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method and
> > replacement of the tire is also recommended.
> > >
> > > 3.) Loose or missing hardware.
> > > A: A good visual inspection of the attaching hardware and bearings.
> > >
> > > I hope this help you find your problem.
> > > Please feel free to call me if I can be of any further assistance.
> > >
> > > Mark 501-366-7899
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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


Lakeland Sun N Fun Report

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

* Wind * from the E (100 degrees) at 10 MPH (9 KT)
* Visibility * 1/4 mile(s)
* Sky conditions * obscured
* Weather * Fog
* Temperature * 66 F (19 C)
* Dew Point * 66 F (19 C)
* Relative Humidity * 100%
* Pressure (altimeter) * 29.98 in. Hg (1015 hPa)


We are two days off from the Sun N Fun fly in. This morning (Saturday) it is IFR there but fog isn't too unusual here in Florida. The wife and I are planning on going over for lunch today and check out whats going on. I've heard that many vendors are setting up already. I'm planning on flying in next Saturday to the show, anybody else flying in? It's been hot here in FL, last week 85+ so plan on that and bring your sunscreen. We did have one day of continuous drizzle last week, that never happens here.
Fly Safe,
Mike Q200 N3QP


Re: Nose Gear Shimmy

John ten
 

Hi Mark,

Re weight, we are talking grams.

Re Vibrations, No, I am having the devil's own job finding a cause
seeing as there is no vibration...;-) but I will keep looking...

John

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


John,

I think that I'll stick with the plans for now. But I'll keep the
dampener idea in mind. I just want a safe, affordable and fast
airplane. To do that I need to keep the weight in check.

Have you been able to locate the cause of your vibration?

Mark

----Original Message----
From: johntenhave@...
Date: 04/11/2007 20:47
To:
Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy







Hi Mark,

my Vari-Eze and My Long-Eze both have them. I cannot comment on the
Long yet but the Vari-Eze is trouble and shimmy free.

If you want I think that I can extract the relevant section of the
plans and send you drawings of well proven systems.

Regards

John

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


John,

You are correct the Tri Q200 plans did not call for a shimmy
dampener system. However if you plan on installing one let me know how
it works. My Tri Q200 uses a caster nose wheel without a shimmy
dampener system. I'm close to taxi testing and hope to fine out how
well the little nose gear holds up. I'lll bench mark off of your
success.

Mark

----Original Message----
From: johntenhave@
Date: 04/11/2007 17:11
To:
Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy







Ok,

if those are the top three reasons, I am guessing that the nose gear
does not have a shimmy damper?

John

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




Tri Q200 Family,
This is to the gentleman that wrote in asking for information on
take off speeds for the Tri-Q200.
What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmy
problem. While there are several things that will cause the nose
wheel to shimmy, I’m only going to talk about the top
three.
1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft use
Nitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water
intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing
your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor
and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing.
An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high
speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds)
A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from your
valve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire.
B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water,
ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help
push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can
cause an out of balance condition.

2.) The tire is out-of- round.
A: Raise the nose of the aircraft and spin the nose tire. (You
can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.)
Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a
high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct
this type of condition.
B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method and
replacement of the tire is also recommended.

3.) Loose or missing hardware.
A: A good visual inspection of the attaching hardware and bearings.

I hope this help you find your problem.
Please feel free to call me if I can be of any further assistance.

Mark 501-366-7899











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







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


Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

peterjfharris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Thanks Joseph I respect your need to make your own personal decision on this. What has come out of this debate has reminded me that two of the ground loops occurred at the upset which I described from the runway when I had flush aelerons, and I find handling much better with the aelerons up providing more load on the tail wheel.
And be careful with the brakes. The tailwheel is the only stabilising force when the dragger is decelerating and the brakes reduce the load on the tail wheel.
I have the improved tail wheel and now a reflexor but no other mods.
Enjoy the endorsement and safe flying.
Peter

---- Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote:

Peter,

I do value your reasoned opinion and recommendations. In addition the the Q2 history of handling problems, certainly the airport conditions you described suggest preparedness. I have incorporated the Jim-Bob 6 pack to correct the handling problems. And so, my construction skills are only in question which is the partial purpose of taxi testing. Hopefully, my Q2xx will track true and I will acquire sufficient skill to manage the aircraft. The airport has two runways, about 5000x100, in good condition, non-tower controlled. Today, if the weather cooperates, I will be getting a tail wheel endorsement at the same airport.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...> wrote:
Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something else. I have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it is a long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3 times in 11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The approach crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800 ft which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line. I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a lake at
one end and tall trees at the other.

Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you can't be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph





































Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

In some ways, an "argument" like this is the best part of this list. Agree
with Jim or Peter, you have to think about what could happen during
testing. You also get to hear about the experience, also a great part of
this list.

Thanks for your efforts -- clear writing isn't easy.

Mike Perry

At 09:46 PM 4/12/2007 +0000, Jim wrote:

Peter,

Thanks for the quick response. I too think you're a hell of a fella
even though you may or may not bake a good turkey. I know your
intentions are always good. We just have differing opinions and can
voice them, which is a good thing. I've never been politically
correct so please forgive me for that.

This is not about you or me so don't take it personal. I just happen
to believe suggesting a new Q pilot ground loop his plane for
practice is asking for trouble. Case in point; a few months back I
once again got heat for suggesting one of our local pilots set his
plane up with the 6 pack to avoid handling problems and months of
additional work before he smashed it. Many on this list pupu'd the
idea and blew it off.

Well he didn't and it was and now he will spend several months
getting it back into flying condition! When you said "I don't
understand your suggestion that this practice will risk overturning
the Q dragger" I had to comment. This fella was about 6" from going
over on the top according to eyewittnesses. It was his first attempt
at flight in a Q and with no supervision or crash crew or any of the
things we all need to have on site prior to first flights. I am just
really happy it had a good ending - he's not dead". I'm not trying to
be pompous or a smart ass or any of that. Its all about safety and
thats all it is.

Just for the record, I've never ground looped my plane or had it
deviate more that 10 degrees from center line. I'm either really
really lucky or have adequate control of the plane. Which do you
think it is?

Peter, I only wish you well.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@..., "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not
want to express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate
authority who knows all? Have you stopped learning?
Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an
engineer with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q
dragger pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the
issue and make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something
else. I have explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations
before take off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am
entitled to
that opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.
I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk
overturning the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In
the
practice that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it
is a long time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3
times in 11 years, what is your score?
How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at
S26 17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The
approach crosses the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and
the strip
slopes down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800
ft which is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground
looped there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was
based before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has
canals running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line.
I have not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a
lake at one end and tall trees at the other.
Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you
can't be all bad. I refute your rebuttal.
Peter

From: Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM

Peter,
I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs.
If and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up
to understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours
older ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what?
It was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again,
beware of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes
down to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no
other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

"Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@> wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go.
JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

Peter


Re: Nose Gear Shimmy

mailbox@hughes.net <wingnut@...>
 

John,

I think that I'll stick with the plans for now. But I'll keep the dampener idea in mind. I just want a safe, affordable and fast airplane. To do that I need to keep the weight in check.

Have you been able to locate the cause of your vibration?

Mark

----Original Message----
From: johntenhave@...
Date: 04/11/2007 20:47
To:
Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy







Hi Mark,

my Vari-Eze and My Long-Eze both have them. I cannot comment on the
Long yet but the Vari-Eze is trouble and shimmy free.

If you want I think that I can extract the relevant section of the
plans and send you drawings of well proven systems.

Regards

John

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


John,

You are correct the Tri Q200 plans did not call for a shimmy
dampener system. However if you plan on installing one let me know how
it works. My Tri Q200 uses a caster nose wheel without a shimmy
dampener system. I'm close to taxi testing and hope to fine out how
well the little nose gear holds up. I'lll bench mark off of your
success.

Mark

----Original Message----
From: johntenhave@...
Date: 04/11/2007 17:11
To:
Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy







Ok,

if those are the top three reasons, I am guessing that the nose gear
does not have a shimmy damper?

John

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




Tri Q200 Family,
This is to the gentleman that wrote in asking for information on
take off speeds for the Tri-Q200.
What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmy
problem. While there are several things that will cause the nose
wheel to shimmy, I’m only going to talk about the top three.
1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft use
Nitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water
intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing
your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor
and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing.
An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high
speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds)
A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from your
valve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire.
B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water,
ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help
push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can
cause an out of balance condition.

2.) The tire is out-of- round.
A: Raise the nose of the aircraft and spin the nose tire. (You
can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.)
Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a
high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct
this type of condition.
B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method and
replacement of the tire is also recommended.

3.) Loose or missing hardware.
A: A good visual inspection of the attaching hardware and bearings.

I hope this help you find your problem.
Please feel free to call me if I can be of any further assistance.

Mark 501-366-7899



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















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


E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Jim Patillo
 

Peter,

Thanks for the quick response. I too think you're a hell of a fella
even though you may or may not bake a good turkey. I know your
intentions are always good. We just have differing opinions and can
voice them, which is a good thing. I've never been politically
correct so please forgive me for that.

This is not about you or me so don't take it personal. I just happen
to believe suggesting a new Q pilot ground loop his plane for
practice is asking for trouble. Case in point; a few months back I
once again got heat for suggesting one of our local pilots set his
plane up with the 6 pack to avoid handling problems and months of
additional work before he smashed it. Many on this list pupu'd the
idea and blew it off.

Well he didn't and it was and now he will spend several months
getting it back into flying condition! When you said "I don't
understand your suggestion that this practice will risk overturning
the Q dragger" I had to comment. This fella was about 6" from going
over on the top according to eyewittnesses. It was his first attempt
at flight in a Q and with no supervision or crash crew or any of the
things we all need to have on site prior to first flights. I am just
really happy it had a good ending - he's not dead". I'm not trying to
be pompous or a smart ass or any of that. Its all about safety and
thats all it is.

Just for the record, I've never ground looped my plane or had it
deviate more that 10 degrees from center line. I'm either really
really lucky or have adequate control of the plane. Which do you
think it is?

Peter, I only wish you well.

Regards,
Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion,
that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not
want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate
authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an
engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q
dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the
issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something
else. I have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations
before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to
that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk
overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the
practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it
is a long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3
times in 11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at
S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The
approach crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip
slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800
ft which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground
looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was
based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has
canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line.
I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a
lake at
one end and tall trees at the other.



Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you
can't be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing




Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs.
If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up
to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours
older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what?
It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again,
beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes
down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no
other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo


--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and
initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go.
JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training.
We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the
wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it
is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and
emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first
third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the
longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am
thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger
is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it
is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and
accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need
a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning
how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control,
power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later,
I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of
the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is
no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting
the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts
is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg
position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board,
there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I
did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is
going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few
occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose
higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground
handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now
with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you
post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power
to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed
does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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







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




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


Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Hey Phil,

I rebut your refutal !

I visited you field and it looks great, you guys are spoiled. You are not
all that far from the mountains too. My Noosa strip is mostly gravel except
for some tar each end and it is only 7 yds wide (check it with the
measurement tool). There is a mob of resident kangaroos but they have plane
sense, a few pelicans and water fowl. The strip is 3 ft AMSL in a nice
setting by the resort town.

Cheers

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
britmcman@...
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 4:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: E: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing



I refute your refutal. Sorry, Pete, I just had to get that in there:') Now
everybody go back to building or flying. I liked one post this week that
gave a solid three reasons why a Tri-Q might have a wheel shimmy. That was a

good post by Mark (Wingnut). That is the kind of content that this list
benefits from. It was objective and informative.

I think I will take a look at Peter's locations. Thanks, Pete. It is like a
virtual visit. Perhaps we all should post our locations where we enjoy
flying our Quickies. I am at Ramona, California (KRNM) at

Lat/Long: 33-02-21.0000N / 116-54-54.9000W
33-02.350000N / 116-54.915000W
33.0391667 / -116.9152500

Cheers,

Phil

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.
<http://www.aol.com.> com.


Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Hi Sam,

Now you have a good tail spring it should not happen again !

The POH page 6.1 lists the ground loop under emergency procedures as a means
to minimize the ground roll and it describes how to do it and what to
expect. "the aircraft will turn in a circle of decreasing radius while
reducing speed. After about 180-270 deg. the aircraft will stop" "During
flight testing this maneuvre was accomplished without damage to the
aircraft. No tendency to tip over was evident. Carefully inspect the
airframe after a ground loop"

It would also be wise to inspect the area first for any snags.

The decision how to prepare for that first flight is personal and it is well
to think about all of the options in preparation for that first landing. It
will be a personal decision whether try a ground loop.

I think it is a good idea to think also about the use of brakes and
carefully experiment this also because sudden braking will easily lift the
tail and could cause prop strike. Brakes should not be used in a ground loop
as it will tighten the loop and load the airframe and could cause prop
strike. The temptation to use brakes in a ground loop should be avoided !

JMHO

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Sam Hoskins
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 9:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: E: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing



I unintentionally ground looped mine in early taxi tests, due in part to the
fact that I had not yet done the Gall alignment. It didn't hurt the plane.

However, a few years ago I had a tailspring break which led to an off-runway
excursion, which lead to a ground loop. The left wheelpant caught on
something and broke off. This resulted in a prop strike and a bent the
crankshaft.

So, no, I couldn't really recommend doing this intentionally.

Sam Hoskins

On 4/12/07, Peter Harris <peterjfharris@
<mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote:

Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an
engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something else. I
have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk
overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the
practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it is a
long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3 times in
11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The approach
crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800 ft
which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line. I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a lake
at
one end and tall trees at the other.

Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you can't
be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
<Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
<Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
<Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com] On
Behalf Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%
<Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%
<Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%
<Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%
<Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%
<Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph































--
Sam Hoskins
www.MistakeProofing.Net
618-967-0016 ph.
312-212-4086 fax


Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

raoborg@...
 

Hi Peter. Anything new on the tail spring? I have the wheel and tire together now and I am modifying the bracket to accommodate them. Keep up your suggestions Peter, rebuttals from Jim and Sam are the best you can get in the Q'S family. So long Raoul

--- peterjfharris@... wrote:

From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: E: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:00:40 +1000

Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something else. I have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it is a long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3 times in 11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The approach crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800 ft which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line. I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a lake at
one end and tall trees at the other.



Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you can't be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing




Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo


--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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




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





_____________________________________________________________
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.


Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

raoborg@...
 

Hi Phil. Anything on the vortex yet? I am still waiting for them.I have sometime to go before I can use them but. Raoul

--- britmcman@... wrote:

From: britmcman@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: E: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:14:33 EDT

I refute your refutal. Sorry, Pete, I just had to get that in there:') Now
everybody go back to building or flying. I liked one post this week that
gave a solid three reasons why a Tri-Q might have a wheel shimmy. That was a
good post by Mark (Wingnut). That is the kind of content that this list
benefits from. It was objective and informative.

I think I will take a look at Peter's locations. Thanks, Pete. It is like a
virtual visit. Perhaps we all should post our locations where we enjoy
flying our Quickies. I am at Ramona, California (KRNM) at

Lat/Long: 33-02-21.0000N / 116-54-54.9000W
33-02.350000N / 116-54.915000W
33.0391667 / -116.9152500

Cheers,

Phil



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.








_____________________________________________________________
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.


Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Peter,

I do value your reasoned opinion and recommendations. In addition the the Q2 history of handling problems, certainly the airport conditions you described suggest preparedness. I have incorporated the Jim-Bob 6 pack to correct the handling problems. And so, my construction skills are only in question which is the partial purpose of taxi testing. Hopefully, my Q2xx will track true and I will acquire sufficient skill to manage the aircraft. The airport has two runways, about 5000x100, in good condition, non-tower controlled. Today, if the weather cooperates, I will be getting a tail wheel endorsement at the same airport.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...> wrote:
Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something else. I have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it is a long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3 times in 11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The approach crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800 ft which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line. I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a lake at
one end and tall trees at the other.

Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you can't be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph





























Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Sam Hoskins
 

I unintentionally ground looped mine in early taxi tests, due in part to the
fact that I had not yet done the Gall alignment. It didn't hurt the plane.

However, a few years ago I had a tailspring break which led to an off-runway
excursion, which lead to a ground loop. The left wheelpant caught on
something and broke off. This resulted in a prop strike and a bent the
crankshaft.

So, no, I couldn't really recommend doing this intentionally.

Sam Hoskins

On 4/12/07, Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...> wrote:

Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an
engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something else. I
have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk
overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the
practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it is a
long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3 times in
11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The approach
crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800 ft
which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line. I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a lake
at
one end and tall trees at the other.

Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you can't
be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com] On
Behalf Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

Peter

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com]
On Behalf
Of
Joseph M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST% <Q-LIST%25>40yahoogroups.com>
com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph































--
Sam Hoskins
www.MistakeProofing.Net
618-967-0016 ph.
312-212-4086 fax


E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

John ten
 

Phil,

this is about flying.

I might just add that it is recommended procedure in the Q1 pilots
handbook as a quickstop option.

John


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

I refute your refutal. Sorry, Pete, I just had to get that in
there:') Now
everybody go back to building or flying.


E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jim,

There is no need for you to go to the trouble to rebut my opinion, that is
kind of ugly. That is the kind of response that makes others not want to
express an opinion of any kind . Are you really the ultimate authority who
knows all? Have you stopped learning?

Disagree is cool. Whenever I give my opinion it is qualified as an engineer
with hands on installation experience and over 300 hours as a Q dragger
pilot and I explain the reasons why so folk can think about the issue and
make up their own mind . I am not offended if they do something else. I have
explained why I think it is a good plan to try taxi deviations before take
off to be fully prepared for the first landing and I am entitled to that
opinion without some kind of rebuttal or attempts to discredit me.

I don't understand your suggestion that this practice will risk overturning
the Q dragger, you must have had some wild rides some time. In the practice
that I have suggested I do not believe it is possible. I guess it is a long
time since you first began with fast taxi practice.

As for ground loops I suspect I have had no more than you Jim, 3 times in 11
years, what is your score?

How about getting into Global earth and visiting my airstrip at S26
17.0;E 152 42.1. I turn final to 14 at the farm house . The approach crosses
the river in a ravine twice with up and down drafts and the strip slopes
down at 4 deg. There is a big depression in the strip at about 1800 ft which
is sometimes enough to make the ground run airbourne. I have ground looped
there twice. Reflexed aelerons has now solved the problem. I was based
before at Noosa at S 26 25.4 E 153 03.8 for 5 years . It has canals
running full length both sides and just 30yd. off the centre line. I have
not ground looped at Noosa it would finish in the canal. There is a lake at
one end and tall trees at the other.



Jim you do lousy rebuttals but I know you bake a good turkey so you can't be
all bad. I refute your rebuttal.

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 3:03 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Taxi Testing




Peter,

I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of
conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and
just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one
too and am here to rebut yours.

The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially
dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights
besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane.
Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If
and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have
several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp
on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because
fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to
understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older
ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It
was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago.

I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though
sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane
is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take
advise from those you trust.

To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware
of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down
to it, its your ass on the line, period.

Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail
dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I
were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K
gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other
options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he
did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the
planes that kept us out of trouble.

Regards,
Jim Patillo


--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Peter
Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
wrote:

Joseph,

I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial
ground
handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice
depending
on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.

The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten
just before
touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of
stability in
crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing



Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We
teach
MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA
just after
takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard
and
elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is
appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first
landing.
Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo
cross
country.

During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the
brakes and
decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel
firmly
planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will
increase
controlability.

I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high
approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind
landings.
However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"
technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind
conditions
for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third
of a
wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi
to the
ramp and celebrate!

So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi
divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do
appreciate
your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.

How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional
divergent taxi
during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?

Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a
side slip
with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude
axis of
the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this
configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking,
do the
side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously
neutralize
rudder. Will that work?

Joseph

Joseph
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before
finally
flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight
training
when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual
flight
attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know
exactly what
to do without delay or freaking out.

There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided
with
correct practice.

The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless
finally
taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is
stable
and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is
unstable
like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any
divergence
is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the
deflection.

The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate
the
divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a
good
load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for
best grip.
It is also very springy.

Joseph you are going to enjoy this.

Cheers

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 M Snow
Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Peter,

I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how
to do the
landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the
end of the
canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power
control
and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I
will
experiment with divergence issues.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several
sessions fast
taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.
Jerking
the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens
very
occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back
hard and
that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the
runway
and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the
end of the
runway no matter what.

I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no
recovery
and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.

(If a Tri Q the above does not apply.)

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off
and flares
better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up
not down.

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 M Snow
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the
bottom
surfaces.
I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is
equal to
64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.
Several
Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with
reflexor
down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and
performance.
Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
Joseph,

Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there
do seem
to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did
not like
the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going
to be
limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground
run.I am
using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions
I have
used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher
but
visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it
happens
quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling
problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with
reflex
ground handling is good again.

Are you flying Joseph.?

(Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also)

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test

Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post
on three
occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier
response:

Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up,
70 kts
over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to
fly onto
the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does
the pitch
buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the
pitch buck?

Joseph

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com>
bigpond.com> wrote:
What troubles Joseph ?

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 M Snow
Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Test

Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list?

Joseph





























Re: E: Re: Quickie Taxi Testing

britmcman99
 

I refute your refutal. Sorry, Pete, I just had to get that in there:') Now
everybody go back to building or flying. I liked one post this week that
gave a solid three reasons why a Tri-Q might have a wheel shimmy. That was a
good post by Mark (Wingnut). That is the kind of content that this list
benefits from. It was objective and informative.

I think I will take a look at Peter's locations. Thanks, Pete. It is like a
virtual visit. Perhaps we all should post our locations where we enjoy
flying our Quickies. I am at Ramona, California (KRNM) at

Lat/Long: 33-02-21.0000N / 116-54-54.9000W
33-02.350000N / 116-54.915000W
33.0391667 / -116.9152500

Cheers,

Phil



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


Re: Nose Gear Shimmy

John ten
 

Hi Mark,

my Vari-Eze and My Long-Eze both have them. I cannot comment on the
Long yet but the Vari-Eze is trouble and shimmy free.

If you want I think that I can extract the relevant section of the
plans and send you drawings of well proven systems.

Regards

John

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


John,

You are correct the Tri Q200 plans did not call for a shimmy
dampener system. However if you plan on installing one let me know how
it works. My Tri Q200 uses a caster nose wheel without a shimmy
dampener system. I'm close to taxi testing and hope to fine out how
well the little nose gear holds up. I'lll bench mark off of your
success.

Mark

----Original Message----
From: johntenhave@...
Date: 04/11/2007 17:11
To:
Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy







Ok,

if those are the top three reasons, I am guessing that the nose gear
does not have a shimmy damper?

John

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




Tri Q200 Family,
This is to the gentleman that wrote in asking for information on
take off speeds for the Tri-Q200.
What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmy
problem. While there are several things that will cause the nose
wheel to shimmy, I’m only going to talk about the top three.
1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft use
Nitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water
intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing
your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor
and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing.
An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high
speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds)
A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from your
valve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire.
B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water,
ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help
push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can
cause an out of balance condition.

2.) The tire is out-of- round.
A: Raise the nose of the aircraft and spin the nose tire. (You
can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.)
Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a
high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct
this type of condition.
B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method and
replacement of the tire is also recommended.

3.) Loose or missing hardware.
A: A good visual inspection of the attaching hardware and bearings.

I hope this help you find your problem.
Please feel free to call me if I can be of any further assistance.

Mark 501-366-7899



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







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