Date   

Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

I agree with Matt, "[E-LSA] is all very disappointing." I would like
to
suggest everyone bug there EAA chapters and anyone they know at
national
about this. The whole LSA movement does little for those of us
interested in experimentation, and it certainly hasn't reduced the
cost
of flying. I would like to be able to license any 2 seat homebuilt
that
meets LSA stall and top speed as an E-LSA; alternately I would prefer
the FAA do away with Medicals for day-VFR flight.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.

Are you saying that gross weight is the hindrance?

Since a private pilot with an expired medical (but not failed or
otherwise revoked or surrendered) or a Sport pilot can fly ANY airplane,
experimental or not, that meets the minimum requirements of LSA, there
is NO REASON to license any experimental as E-LSA, which can't be done
anyhow as there is absolutely NO need to do so.

Here's a short list of may of the experimental aircraft available today
that one can build and register as experimental, amateur-built and fly
as a Sport Pilot. http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/likely_lsa.html
The last three issues of KITPLANES has a more comprehensive list.

LSA is a great rule. It's not perfect by any stretch but it has either
put or kept hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the air who would
never otherwise be allowed. Odds are real good that you already know
more than one person who is actively flying as a sport pilot or is
planning to skip their next medical and switch to sport pilot.

Affordable? The local flight center recently put a spanking new LSA on
the flight line, and has it priced about $10 per hour more than the
literally trashed Tomahawk parked next to it. It has a full glass panel,
including GPS, burns half the fuel per hour, and goes the same speed
except it will out-climb the Tomahawk by about 3x and has a better
useful load.

It's clean, pretty, and my passengers are not afraid to climb in it.
It's booked solid, where as the Tomahawk collects dust and cobwebs.

To put anything but an LSA on the flight line that was spanking new
would have cost the flight center 2-3 times the purchase cost and they
could have to charge 2-3 times the rental fee, it would burn 2-3 times
the fuel, and since it doesn't go 2-3 times faster, it just wouldn't
pencil as a trainer.

Since I'm an instrument rated pilot with a current medical certificate,
I can fly the LSA at night and if it were equipped and properly papered
for IFR flight (which many are), I could fly it in IMC... which I would
consider for the type of IMC we get around here (low visibility from fog
or smog).

A new student can chose to become a private pilot in 40 hours, using the
crusty old tomahawk, spending $80 per hour for the plane and $30 for the
instructor. He needs 20 hours of dual @ $120 per hour and 20 hours of
solo @ $80-- total expenditure on just these items, $4000.

Said same student can opt for Sport pilot in 20 hours, spend $90 on the
plane and $30 on the instructor. He needs 10 hours of dual @ $130 per
hour and 10 hours of solo @ $90-- total expenditure on just these items,
$2600.

Affordable? Maybe. Cheaper? Substantially.

So again, I don't understand the disappointment.

Pat


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

I see.
With all due respect, I'm not sure you do.

Well this is all very disappointing.
Why? I told you how you could go about making it happen.

I was hoping to be able to build one,
You can.

get my LSA certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm
colorblind and would only be able to fly
during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement)
I think you mean "get my Sport Pilot rating", which there's nothing
stopping you, certainly nothing that's been stated in this thread thus
far could stop you.

and have a great airplane that is very economical and fun to fly.
You still can.

So... what's stopping you?

You could never get dual in a Quickie Q1 anyhow.

Even if the Q-1 didn't qualify as an LSA (which I'm arguing that it
could) there are literally hundreds of LSA-qualified experimental
aircraft, most of which are very economical to build/own/fly that you
could even get training in, even further reducing your costs. You can
even fly off the "40" with the proper endorsement.

I just don't understand your disappointment or defeatist attitude.

Pat


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Mike Perry
 

I agree with Matt, "[E-LSA] is all very disappointing." I would like to suggest everyone bug there EAA chapters and anyone they know at national about this. The whole LSA movement does little for those of us interested in experimentation, and it certainly hasn't reduced the cost of flying. I would like to be able to license any 2 seat homebuilt that meets LSA stall and top speed as an E-LSA; alternately I would prefer the FAA do away with Medicals for day-VFR flight.

Maybe the EAA should rename itself the EMAA for Expensive Manufacturers Aviation Association.

Mike Perry

matt_v01 wrote:


--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>, "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the
parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light
Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the
stall
speed.
Gang,

Before this gets too far, I have to gig this on a technicality.

First, the only aircraft that can be registered as an E-LSA are
those kitted
as such, by a manufacturer of a certified S-LSA. In other words, since
Zenith makes and sells an S-LSA CH601, they can if they chose, offer an
E-LSA kit of that same plane (verbatim) and it has to be built 100%
according to plans and specs, with absolutely NO deviations, save maybe
paint.

Exception: If you own an S-LSA, YOU may downgrade it to an E-LSA.

That's currently the ONLY way to register any aircraft as an E-LSA.

Second, the Quickie line of aircraft, in its current state of ownership,
will always be just an experimental.

If you, as a Sport Pilot, wish to exercise your privileges to fly
under your
SP license, you have to do so in an LSA qualifying aircraft, be it a
certified production S-LSA, an E-LSA, an Experimental, or a Certified GA
aircraft. It's up to you to know if the plan qualifies or not.

Now back to the question at hand. There are three LSA performance
parameters:

1. Maximum takeoff weight - 1320 lbs
2. Maximum speeds - 120 kts at maximum power (138 MPH) calibrated
airspeed
3. Max stall speed - 45 kts (51.8 MPH) VS1* calibrated airspeed

*VS1 = the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed
obtained in a
specific configuration.

Numbers one and two, no problem. If #2 IS a problem, re-pitch the
prop until
it's not. Accept the vertical climb capability in trade.

Number three could become a problem, but VG's and a very low weight
could
solve it.

Here's the "loophole" if there is one.

YOU are the builder and the author of the POH and the placards.

YOUR plane is unproven until you fly it and find or define the flight
envelope, including stall. Q's don't "stall" in the traditional
manner so we
have to look further at the definition: "or the minimum steady
flight speed
obtained". What is considered "steady flight"? I'm not sure but a lot of
definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you still
"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and keep a
heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?) If
so, is
that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the
green arc
and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

Pat
I see. Well this is all very disappointing. I was hoping to be able to build one, get my LSA
certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm colorblind and would only be able to fly
during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement) and have a great airplane that is
very economical and fun to fly.

Thank you so much for weighing in on the issue gentlemen.

Have a good evening.

-Matt C


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

matt_v01
 

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light
Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the stall
speed.
Gang,

Before this gets too far, I have to gig this on a technicality.

First, the only aircraft that can be registered as an E-LSA are those kitted
as such, by a manufacturer of a certified S-LSA. In other words, since
Zenith makes and sells an S-LSA CH601, they can if they chose, offer an
E-LSA kit of that same plane (verbatim) and it has to be built 100%
according to plans and specs, with absolutely NO deviations, save maybe
paint.

Exception: If you own an S-LSA, YOU may downgrade it to an E-LSA.

That's currently the ONLY way to register any aircraft as an E-LSA.

Second, the Quickie line of aircraft, in its current state of ownership,
will always be just an experimental.

If you, as a Sport Pilot, wish to exercise your privileges to fly under your
SP license, you have to do so in an LSA qualifying aircraft, be it a
certified production S-LSA, an E-LSA, an Experimental, or a Certified GA
aircraft. It's up to you to know if the plan qualifies or not.

Now back to the question at hand. There are three LSA performance
parameters:

1. Maximum takeoff weight - 1320 lbs
2. Maximum speeds - 120 kts at maximum power (138 MPH) calibrated airspeed
3. Max stall speed - 45 kts (51.8 MPH) VS1* calibrated airspeed

*VS1 = the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a
specific configuration.

Numbers one and two, no problem. If #2 IS a problem, re-pitch the prop until
it's not. Accept the vertical climb capability in trade.

Number three could become a problem, but VG's and a very low weight could
solve it.

Here's the "loophole" if there is one.

YOU are the builder and the author of the POH and the placards.

YOUR plane is unproven until you fly it and find or define the flight
envelope, including stall. Q's don't "stall" in the traditional manner so we
have to look further at the definition: "or the minimum steady flight speed
obtained". What is considered "steady flight"? I'm not sure but a lot of
definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you still
"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and keep a
heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?) If so, is
that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the green arc
and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

Pat


I see. Well this is all very disappointing. I was hoping to be able to build one, get my LSA
certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm colorblind and would only be able to fly
during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement) and have a great airplane that is
very economical and fun to fly.

Thank you so much for weighing in on the issue gentlemen.

Have a good evening.

-Matt C


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light
Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the stall
speed.
Gang,

Before this gets too far, I have to gig this on a technicality.

First, the only aircraft that can be registered as an E-LSA are those kitted
as such, by a manufacturer of a certified S-LSA. In other words, since
Zenith makes and sells an S-LSA CH601, they can if they chose, offer an
E-LSA kit of that same plane (verbatim) and it has to be built 100%
according to plans and specs, with absolutely NO deviations, save maybe
paint.

Exception: If you own an S-LSA, YOU may downgrade it to an E-LSA.

That's currently the ONLY way to register any aircraft as an E-LSA.

Second, the Quickie line of aircraft, in its current state of ownership,
will always be just an experimental.

If you, as a Sport Pilot, wish to exercise your privileges to fly under your
SP license, you have to do so in an LSA qualifying aircraft, be it a
certified production S-LSA, an E-LSA, an Experimental, or a Certified GA
aircraft. It's up to you to know if the plan qualifies or not.

Now back to the question at hand. There are three LSA performance
parameters:

1. Maximum takeoff weight - 1320 lbs
2. Maximum speeds - 120 kts at maximum power (138 MPH) calibrated airspeed
3. Max stall speed - 45 kts (51.8 MPH) VS1* calibrated airspeed

*VS1 = the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a
specific configuration.

Numbers one and two, no problem. If #2 IS a problem, re-pitch the prop until
it's not. Accept the vertical climb capability in trade.

Number three could become a problem, but VG's and a very low weight could
solve it.

Here's the "loophole" if there is one.

YOU are the builder and the author of the POH and the placards.

YOUR plane is unproven until you fly it and find or define the flight
envelope, including stall. Q's don't "stall" in the traditional manner so we
have to look further at the definition: "or the minimum steady flight speed
obtained". What is considered "steady flight"? I'm not sure but a lot of
definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you still
"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and keep a
heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?) If so, is
that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the green arc
and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

Pat


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Rick Hole <r.hole@...>
 

Sorry, but even if you could reduce the stall speed it still does not
qualify. Experimental LSA requires a kit LSA and allows the builder
NO design changes. You must register it as amateur built
experimental. If it is LSA qualified, a light sport pilot may fly
it, but as Doug says, it fails that test as well.
Rick

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before
and I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: matt_v01
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?


I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and
having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was
wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable
parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of
the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta





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


Re: Wing Load Testing

Rob de Bie
 

Perhaps I can add a few observations. More than 10 years ago I did quite a lot of loads calculations, on a prop trainer and on a fast prop a/c. We used loads software called 'FAR23 LOADS' by McMaster as a starting point. Early PC stuff, written in Basic, with quite a lot of programming errors unfortunately. But apart from the programming errors, Mr McMaster knew his stuff (he was a Piper or Cessna engineer) and we learned a lot.

Essentially, in a normal airplane, the wing-body (think of the plane with no
horizontal tail), has a certain amount of lift, which can be thought of as
acting on the center of pressure of the wing. It also has an inherent
pitching moment (normally nose down) which comes from the airfoil design.
The combination of that pitching moment and the weight of the aircraft
(acting on the CG, which is normally in front of the Center of Pressure, and
therefore also causing a nose down pitching moment), are balanced by the
downforce created by the horizontal tail.
Exactly what McMaster did, with an iterative process. I guess it would work with a Q too.

One thing complicating matters is that the (rear) wing is in the downwash of the canard. So the wing is at another angle of attack than the canard. The effect is quite strong, and you need to decide what mathematical model you use for it.

Another factor is that the fuselage itself probably generates a pitching moment. We attempted to calculate that with some models than originated in blimp aero calculations, and it looked reasonable, but you never know for sure..

Now finding the exact center of pressure is relatively hard to do because it
does change with angle of attack as does the pressure distribution on the
airfoil surface. What is assumed in aerodynamic design is that everything
is measured from the 0.25% chord location, including the inherent pitching
moment of the airfoil. For a 3D wing, that is normally translated into the
MAC (mean aerodynamic chord) and the quarter chord of that is used.
Exactly what we did. I just looked at the Eppler 1212, and the Cm varies over angle of attack, which might complicate things.

I would guess that the pitching moments on the airfoils are
small relative to the moment created by the distance between the wing and
the CG location. Its probably within your error margin to assume the lift
comes from the 0.25% MAC line on the canard and main wing and determine the
distribution based on the CG location. Certainly, guessing that its at
0.25% instead of 30% will give you a slightly higher load for an aft CG
location and be the more conservative answer.
If you can, start with calculations, and see what a transfer from 25 to 30% gives you. You could start by calculating the 25% MAC position of both surfaces in the aircraft coordinate system.

As for where to put weight on a wing to test it, you are testing the spar,
so you would like to put the weight on the spar. Airfoil pitching moments
act on the entire wing and so don't twist the spar at all. Aileron
deflections can twist the wing somewhat if the wing is long and slender and
doesn't have ailerons the entire length of the trailing edge. For most GA
planes, this is not even an issue because the torsional stiffness of the
wing is pretty high. For the solid wing contruction of a Quickie, its even
less of an issue.
The fast prop a/c had a twin spar wing. I was quite amazed by the load transfer caused by speed. At VD, most of the lift was carried by the rear spar IIRC.

Rob


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Nathan Peck
 

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the stall
speed.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM, matt_v01 <mattxb@gmail.com> wrote:

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>, "Doug
Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before and
I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: matt_v01
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?


I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta






I searched for LSA, and could only come up with a definite answer of
NO for the Q2/200/Dragonfly's.

From what I found it appears that the stall could be lowered slightly
by increasing AOI or perhaps building lighter if possible. The stall
only need be reduced by about 1.5mph (at least according to printed
literature).

Which brings me to another question, what is the real stall speed of
the aircraft? Reading in the archives leads me to believe that the
53mph stall stated by QAC is a little unrealistic.

To me it looks like it could still be possible.



Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

matt_v01
 

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before and
I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: matt_v01
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?


I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta







I searched for LSA, and could only come up with a definite answer of
NO for the Q2/200/Dragonfly's.

From what I found it appears that the stall could be lowered slightly
by increasing AOI or perhaps building lighter if possible. The stall
only need be reduced by about 1.5mph (at least according to printed
literature).

Which brings me to another question, what is the real stall speed of
the aircraft? Reading in the archives leads me to believe that the
53mph stall stated by QAC is a little unrealistic.

To me it looks like it could still be possible.


Re: Spring Fling Flyin

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

yippee!!!!
J

Kevin Boddicker wrote:

Listers one and all.

We have scheduled a Tandem Wing "Spring Fling" fly-in for the first
weekend in May. The new location Decoran Iowa (KDEH). Please make
plans to attend.

The last two years we have gathered in Iowa City. The first year it
was great! In 08 the weather let us down. It was bad Friday and most
of Saturday. Finally got better on Sunday but everyone had headed
home on Saturday. Greg Zimmerman was a fine host and we thank him for
that. The BIG hanger at Iowa City has been torn down, so we need to
move the event.
I have talked with the airport manager in KDEH, my home airport, and
he has given us the clearance to meet there.

We have one big hanger for overnight parking, and several hangers
around the field we might be able to "squeeze" in if need be. We
think we can get nine or ten planes in the main hanger.

Decorah is a college town and therefore has many rooms available. The
usual suspects,
Super 8, Heartland Inn, Country Inn & Suites, and two other private
units who's names escape me. I would suggest the Heartland Inn as
first choice. 563-382-2269. That way everyone could stay at the same
place.

The airport is located on the east side of town about two miles from
the neatest accommodations, but their is a courtesy car there.
Walking would be an adventure, as the airport is about 400' above the
city altitude.

The first weekend in May, is what has been decided upon, by the
powers that be, (Fisher and I) for the fling.
SO! With all that verbiage, the fling is on if no one has objection.

Please let us know if there are any LARGE conflicts. Or if anyone
else would want to be host.
Looking forward to warmer weather and seeing all of you.

Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 115.3 hours
Luana, IA.





------------------------------------------------------------------------
No viruses found in this incoming message
Scanned by *iolo AntiVirus 1.5.4.5*
http://www.iolo.com <http://www.iolo.com/iav/iavpop3>

_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.4.5
http://www.iolo.com


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before and I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: matt_v01
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?


I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta


Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Dan L
 

Matt,



The published stall speed for the Q1 is 53 mph which is just a bit too high
to qualify for LSA.



Dan LaFon

League City, TX



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
matt_v01
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:46 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?



I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta


Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

matt_v01
 

I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)


All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.


Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta


Spring Fling Flyin

Kevin Boddicker
 

Listers one and all.

We have scheduled a Tandem Wing "Spring Fling" fly-in for the first
weekend in May. The new location Decoran Iowa (KDEH). Please make
plans to attend.

The last two years we have gathered in Iowa City. The first year it
was great! In 08 the weather let us down. It was bad Friday and most
of Saturday. Finally got better on Sunday but everyone had headed
home on Saturday. Greg Zimmerman was a fine host and we thank him for
that. The BIG hanger at Iowa City has been torn down, so we need to
move the event.
I have talked with the airport manager in KDEH, my home airport, and
he has given us the clearance to meet there.

We have one big hanger for overnight parking, and several hangers
around the field we might be able to "squeeze" in if need be. We
think we can get nine or ten planes in the main hanger.

Decorah is a college town and therefore has many rooms available. The
usual suspects,
Super 8, Heartland Inn, Country Inn & Suites, and two other private
units who's names escape me. I would suggest the Heartland Inn as
first choice. 563-382-2269. That way everyone could stay at the same
place.

The airport is located on the east side of town about two miles from
the neatest accommodations, but their is a courtesy car there.
Walking would be an adventure, as the airport is about 400' above the
city altitude.

The first weekend in May, is what has been decided upon, by the
powers that be, (Fisher and I) for the fling.
SO! With all that verbiage, the fling is on if no one has objection.

Please let us know if there are any LARGE conflicts. Or if anyone
else would want to be host.
Looking forward to warmer weather and seeing all of you.

Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 115.3 hours
Luana, IA.


Re: Wing Load Testing

Jason Kramb
 

Sorry....just catching up on this thread.

There's lots going on in the distribution of load between the wing and
canard, and it definitely depends on the CG location of the aircraft. It
also depends on the angle of attack, the altitude, temperature, and a host
of other factors.

Essentially, in a normal airplane, the wing-body (think of the plane with no
horizontal tail), has a certain amount of lift, which can be thought of as
acting on the center of pressure of the wing. It also has an inherent
pitching moment (normally nose down) which comes from the airfoil design.
The combination of that pitching moment and the weight of the aircraft
(acting on the CG, which is normally in front of the Center of Pressure, and
therefore also causing a nose down pitching moment), are balanced by the
downforce created by the horizontal tail.

In a canard, the same is true, except that because its in front, the canard
needs to produce lift to balance the nose down pitching moment. How much of
that pitching moment is due to the airfoil, and how much is due to the
distance between the CG and center of pressure of the wing determines how
much load ends on each wing.

Now finding the exact center of pressure is relatively hard to do because it
does change with angle of attack as does the pressure distribution on the
airfoil surface. What is assumed in aerodynamic design is that everything
is measured from the 0.25% chord location, including the inherent pitching
moment of the airfoil. For a 3D wing, that is normally translated into the
MAC (mean aerodynamic chord) and the quarter chord of that is used.

Jay is correct that the pitching moment from the wing airfoil will increase
as speed goes up, but then so will the lift generated by the canard to
balance it out. The neutral point of the aircraft (the point about which
the aircraft is neither stable or unstable) can be calculated using all
those airfoil parameters, as well as the location of the wing and canard,
and it doesn't move much until you start hitting transonic effects (way out
of our range). I would guess that the pitching moments on the airfoils are
small relative to the moment created by the distance between the wing and
the CG location. Its probably within your error margin to assume the lift
comes from the 0.25% MAC line on the canard and main wing and determine the
distribution based on the CG location. Certainly, guessing that its at
0.25% instead of 30% will give you a slightly higher load for an aft CG
location and be the more conservative answer.

I'd bet that since we tend to make a calculation based on a conservative
guess and not spending the time to get the exact answer, that's probably
what Burt did originally. However, back engineering something when you've
got very little of the original data is a lot harder than starting from
scratch. =) I'll have to ask Burt if he still has any of his design data
lying around.


As for where to put weight on a wing to test it, you are testing the spar,
so you would like to put the weight on the spar. Airfoil pitching moments
act on the entire wing and so don't twist the spar at all. Aileron
deflections can twist the wing somewhat if the wing is long and slender and
doesn't have ailerons the entire length of the trailing edge. For most GA
planes, this is not even an issue because the torsional stiffness of the
wing is pretty high. For the solid wing contruction of a Quickie, its even
less of an issue. So, the load should be applied as much on the spar cap as
possible, and in a spanwise distribution that is most representative of the
actual load. This is not uniformly from end to end, but an elliptical
shape. The exact shape is hard to determine without some detailed
calculations, but a standard ellipse is also probably within your error
margin.


Jason Kramb
Aero Design Engineer
Scaled Composites

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:33 AM, JAY SCHEEVEL <scheevel@bresnan.net> wrote:





Hi Guys,

I think you may be splitting hairs here. Jason Kramb, please correct me if
I
am wrong:

I believe that the percentage of load carried on each wing is a function of
airspeed. This is because of the pitching moment contribution of each wing.
The influence of pitching moment is significant and has been neglected in
the
discussion so far. Both airfoils (wing and canard) are assymetric (top to
bottom), they have trailing edge upward pitching moments that varies as a
function of angle of attack and airspeed.

Because of the contribution of pitching moment, the "effective" load
transfers
progressively to the canard with increasing airspeed. This means that at
the
lowest airspeeds, the highest load percenteage is on the rear wing
(probably
around 35%) and at the highest airspeeds, the highest load is on the canard
(I
have heard some on the Q-performance list say it is as high as 90%, but I
have
not verified..I think this number comes from X=plane). So I think the
effort
to pin an exact percentage on each wing the is a fruitless exercise.

As far as the chord at which you find the "center of lift", again this is
only
a number that is significant if there is no pitching moment contribution.
Since the wing is likely to fail by fiber crushing ion the top surface (not
by
torsion), it probably does not matter where on the cord the loads are
placed
as long as they don't fall off during the experiment. To simulate a
trailing
edge up pitching moment, assuming that the wing is inverted for the
experiment, you would want to bias the weight toward the trailing edge as
you
load it.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q still building

------------------------------------

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: Wing Load Testing

Bruce Crain
 

I am glad you men have the ability to calculate and extract the info on the main wing and canard. I for one would like to see the numbers when you finish.
All that I can add to the info is that I don't believe there has ever been a canard or main wing failure in flight. The only exception is when they were built wrong. One canard failed because the guy sliced the foam length ways and micro-ed the foam together. The other time was in respect to the main wing. The gentleman built a fuel tank on top of the main wing. The fuel leaked into the main wing a eroded the foam and it failed.
I think Jimmeh offered this info at one of our "gatherings".

Keep working on the info but get those Q's in the air! I went flying with my Father-In-Law today. We climbed to 8500' msl and stalled it to see what the climb rate is for my TriQ200 at that altitude. The temp was 34 degrees and my Father-In-Law weighs about 200 lbs while I weigh close to 180 lbs. We were full of fuel at 126 lbs with an empty weight of 760 lbs.
So 200+180+126+760= 1266lbs.
Climb rate at 8500'msl @34F @125mph indicated = 500 fpm.
@115mph indicated = 500 fpm.
@105mph indicated = 400 to 500 fpm.
All of tests were done at full throttle with the MT electric pitch prop dialed in at 2700 rpm. Continental 0200 engine. I didn't get the exact numbers on the manifold pressure but it was close to 22" or 24". (Sorry, that's not as technical as I should have been.)

As you can see I am a bit over the old 1100 lbs gross weight that Quickie established and have flown it in that configuration many times. I do have the Waddelow canard and main wing so (apples and oranges).

When all of the facts come out it would be nice to know just how much gross weight should finally be established and where the service ceiling comes out.

I was a CAVU day and as smooth as I have flown. At 8500' the airspeed indicated 158 smph at 23 squared. Someone do the math. Even after a climb to 8500' and 1.2 hrs of fling time we still used only 6.6 gals of fuel.
This is a fantastic efficient airplane so get em done! You be so blessed you did!

Bruce Crain
N96BJ

____________________________________________________________
Click to find information on your credit score and your credit report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/PnY6rbuoW4M6LWMkocclJv8eYeUg5BZttR5tsUmyZey3BCnx6PAgg/


Re: Wing Load Testing

Mike Perry
 

Jay:

First, I probably am splitting hairs. The 1 G load on the wing is probably between 32 and 38% of the weight; I am trying to get a more accurate number but it is a small difference. The 1 G load would be between 320 and 380 lbs; the 12 G load would be between 3840 and 4560 lbs. (based on the original gross weight of 1000 lbs.) If I split the difference the 12 G load would be 4200 lbs. -- probably adequate for our purposes.

Second, The angle of attack changes the center of lift, but only by a small percentage.

Third, I am not aware of the effects of "pitching moment" but I don't see how any force can transfer load from the wing to the canard in stable flight without a shift in CG. Certainly not a large percentage of the gross weight. The center of lift for the entire airplane must act at the CG in order to support the airplane ("center of lift for the entire airplane" includes lifting surfaces, trim and control surfaces and other effects like P-factor).

Mike Perry

JAY SCHEEVEL wrote:


Hi Guys,

I think you may be splitting hairs here. Jason Kramb, please correct me if I
am wrong:

I believe that the percentage of load carried on each wing is a function of
airspeed. This is because of the pitching moment contribution of each wing.
The influence of pitching moment is significant and has been neglected in the
discussion so far. Both airfoils (wing and canard) are assymetric (top to
bottom), they have trailing edge upward pitching moments that varies as a
function of angle of attack and airspeed.

Because of the contribution of pitching moment, the "effective" load transfers
progressively to the canard with increasing airspeed. This means that at the
lowest airspeeds, the highest load percenteage is on the rear wing (probably
around 35%) and at the highest airspeeds, the highest load is on the canard (I
have heard some on the Q-performance list say it is as high as 90%, but I have
not verified..I think this number comes from X=plane). So I think the effort
to pin an exact percentage on each wing the is a fruitless exercise.

As far as the chord at which you find the "center of lift", again this is only
a number that is significant if there is no pitching moment contribution.
Since the wing is likely to fail by fiber crushing ion the top surface (not by
torsion), it probably does not matter where on the cord the loads are placed
as long as they don't fall off during the experiment. To simulate a trailing
edge up pitching moment, assuming that the wing is inverted for the
experiment, you would want to bias the weight toward the trailing edge as you
load it.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q still building

,_._,___


Re: Wing Load Testing

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jay,

As a related subject our beloved CASA released a good article about the
hazards of flying beyond design airspeed. The pitching moment under these
conditions becomes very heavy and in minor turbulence is enough to rip the
wings off with absolutely no warning.

Not that it is likely to happen in normal flight in a Quickie.

Peter.





_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
JAY SCHEEVEL
Sent: Monday, 12 January 2009 3:34 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Wing Load Testing





Hi Guys,

I think you may be splitting hairs here. Jason Kramb, please correct me if I
am wrong:

I believe that the percentage of load carried on each wing is a function of
airspeed. This is because of the pitching moment contribution of each wing.
The influence of pitching moment is significant and has been neglected in
the
discussion so far. Both airfoils (wing and canard) are assymetric (top to
bottom), they have trailing edge upward pitching moments that varies as a
function of angle of attack and airspeed.

Because of the contribution of pitching moment, the "effective" load
transfers
progressively to the canard with increasing airspeed. This means that at the
lowest airspeeds, the highest load percenteage is on the rear wing (probably
around 35%) and at the highest airspeeds, the highest load is on the canard
(I
have heard some on the Q-performance list say it is as high as 90%, but I
have
not verified..I think this number comes from X=plane). So I think the effort
to pin an exact percentage on each wing the is a fruitless exercise.

As far as the chord at which you find the "center of lift", again this is
only
a number that is significant if there is no pitching moment contribution.
Since the wing is likely to fail by fiber crushing ion the top surface (not
by
torsion), it probably does not matter where on the cord the loads are placed
as long as they don't fall off during the experiment. To simulate a trailing
edge up pitching moment, assuming that the wing is inverted for the
experiment, you would want to bias the weight toward the trailing edge as
you
load it.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q still building


Re: Wing Load Testing

JAY SCHEEVEL <scheevel@...>
 

Hi Guys,

I think you may be splitting hairs here. Jason Kramb, please correct me if I
am wrong:

I believe that the percentage of load carried on each wing is a function of
airspeed. This is because of the pitching moment contribution of each wing.
The influence of pitching moment is significant and has been neglected in the
discussion so far. Both airfoils (wing and canard) are assymetric (top to
bottom), they have trailing edge upward pitching moments that varies as a
function of angle of attack and airspeed.

Because of the contribution of pitching moment, the "effective" load transfers
progressively to the canard with increasing airspeed. This means that at the
lowest airspeeds, the highest load percenteage is on the rear wing (probably
around 35%) and at the highest airspeeds, the highest load is on the canard (I
have heard some on the Q-performance list say it is as high as 90%, but I have
not verified..I think this number comes from X=plane). So I think the effort
to pin an exact percentage on each wing the is a fruitless exercise.

As far as the chord at which you find the "center of lift", again this is only
a number that is significant if there is no pitching moment contribution.
Since the wing is likely to fail by fiber crushing ion the top surface (not by
torsion), it probably does not matter where on the cord the loads are placed
as long as they don't fall off during the experiment. To simulate a trailing
edge up pitching moment, assuming that the wing is inverted for the
experiment, you would want to bias the weight toward the trailing edge as you
load it.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q still building


Re: Wing Load Testing

Mike Perry
 

Thanks Dan

Mike Perry

quickheads2 wrote:


The Main Wing is "Eppler E1212 general aviation airfoil"

There is a DAT file for it here:

http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html <http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html>

Dan Yager
www.quickheads.com
Q-200 Under Repair