Date   

Re: Reflexor hinge bushing QCSAR4 thickness?

Leon
 

I just happened to have that drawing on the pile next to me. It looks like QAC didn't specify a dimension but working back from the hardware and scaling from the drawing it looks like it was 1/4".

While the QAC version may be a more precise way of reflexing the ailerons with out introducing any roll component, Jon is right about the other design being much easier to fabricate. The asymmetrical displacement of the ailerons introduced by the other design is probably only theoretical. If your working from scratch I'd take a look at the simpler version before starting any fabrication......
=================
Leon

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, jon@... wrote:


Hi Sanjay,

I'm not positive but I think that part was to be quarter inch (.25") thick.

Hopefully this does not confuse things but have you seen the "improved" reflexor design published in Q-Talk?

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: "sdhall" <sdhall@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2010 6:25am
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Reflexor hinge bushing QCSAR4 thickness?

Can someone tell me the thickness of the Phenolic Reflexor upper hinge
bushing QCSAR4?
thanks
Sanjay


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


Don Crowl? . . .

quickheads2 <groups@...>
 

Is Don Crowl a member of this list? If so, please e-mail me off list. I got your check in the mail for your 2010 QBA membership, but I need your e-mail address in order to get you signed up.

Thanks,
Dan Yager
QBA Editor,
www.quickheads.com
quickheads_at_dvdme.com


Re: Reflexor hinge bushing QCSAR4 thickness?

jon@...
 

Hi Sanjay,

I'm not positive but I think that part was to be quarter inch (.25") thick.

Hopefully this does not confuse things but have you seen the "improved" reflexor design published in Q-Talk?

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: "sdhall" <sdhall@emergentsys.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2010 6:25am
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Reflexor hinge bushing QCSAR4 thickness?

Can someone tell me the thickness of the Phenolic Reflexor upper hinge
bushing QCSAR4?
thanks
Sanjay


Reflexor hinge bushing QCSAR4 thickness?

sdhall <sdhall@...>
 

Can someone tell me the thickness of the Phenolic Reflexor upper hinge
bushing QCSAR4?
thanks
Sanjay


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

Rick Hole
 

The high end ones certainly do, such as Garmin 900X or 1000. I have not
seen anything in the Dynons, GRT Avionics, JPI, etc that I have dealt with
in recent years to indicate they compensate. Or if they do it must be
internal rather than in the external connector where it really belongs. But
on the point, the precision of these instruments is well within what we need
to operate the engine effectively and safely.



Garmin engineers are upset if non-thermocouple connector pins are used and
insist this not be done (G900X installs). I agree with you, it is overkill
and over-expensive.



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
John Loram
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:28 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?





Given that the pins in a connector are in such intimate contact, I'd be
surprised to learn that there's even one degree of temperature difference
between the junctions; less than the resolution of the measuring system.

It's my impression that all the modern electronic engine monitors
incorporate cold junction compensation within the instrument; it's done with
a thermistor and a few lines of code.

-john-

_____


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

Given that the pins in a connector are in such intimate contact, I'd be
surprised to learn that there's even one degree of temperature difference
between the junctions; less than the resolution of the measuring system.

It's my impression that all the modern electronic engine monitors
incorporate cold junction compensation within the instrument; it's done with
a thermistor and a few lines of code.

-john-


_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Rick
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:07 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?




Yes, but note that in a firewall connector you will expect a higher
temperature on the engine side compared to the cabin side. There will be an
error but it really is not significant. Even if you use the bulkhead
connector as the point where you convert the thermocouple metal wires into
copper (and you will do this somewhere, at least at the instrument) and
error will ocurr. If high accuracy is required, a second thermocouple is
placed at the junction to copper for "cold junction" compensation. But we do
not require that level of precision. EGTs are relative, and CHTs, well, if I
am operating say 5 degrees from red line I will already have taken action.

Rick

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "John
Loram" <johnl@...> wrote:

Hi Rick:
When you splice a connector into a thermocouple wire, you actually create
two junctions (the point I missed ): one junction is created where the
thermocouple wire is attached to the plug side of the connector, and a
second junction is create where you connect the thermocouple wire to the
socket side of the connector. These two junctions are of opposite
polarity,
so, if the two junctions are at the same temperature (as they would be
since
they are plugged into one another) they electrically balance out one
another
and will have no effect on the temperature measurement.

building like crazy, -john-
www.loram.org




_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Rick
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?




I was curious about this as in theory the additional dissimilar metal
junction will cause errors in the readings. As an experiment I tried
connecting a type K thermocouple to a digital thermometer readout with a
length of copper wire spliced in. With the thermocouple immersed in a hot
oil bath I watched the temperature displayed as I used a hot air gun to
heat
the junction of copper to thermocouple wire. I thought I could see 1-2
degrees change heating the junction from ambient to as hot as the gun
would
deliver, but it was difficult to tell the change from random drift.

I have forgotten if I repeated the experiment with a type J thermocouple.
The metals involved are different and I would not assume the same results
without testing.

So my conclusion is, for type K as used in EGT probes and often used for
CHT, you can use the non-thermocouple connector or even use copper
extension
wire without significant error. And as long as all the cylinder's wires
are
the same temperature at the change of metal, all the errors are the same
magnitude and direction, so with EGTs where only the trend is important,
you
are doubly ok.

Rick Hole

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "John
Loram" <johnl@> wrote:

Thanks for that Sam. Your comment forced me to rethink the problem and I
realized that I had not considered that I was running both sides of each
thermocouple leg through the same connector (duh!), and consequently,
the
effect of the dissimilar metals of the connector would be cancelled out
so
long as both the male and the female pins of the connector are the same
material.

Cool! thanks again, -john-








Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

Rick Hole
 

Yes, but note that in a firewall connector you will expect a higher temperature on the engine side compared to the cabin side. There will be an error but it really is not significant. Even if you use the bulkhead connector as the point where you convert the thermocouple metal wires into copper (and you will do this somewhere, at least at the instrument) and error will ocurr. If high accuracy is required, a second thermocouple is placed at the junction to copper for "cold junction" compensation. But we do not require that level of precision. EGTs are relative, and CHTs, well, if I am operating say 5 degrees from red line I will already have taken action.

Rick

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "John Loram" <johnl@...> wrote:

Hi Rick:
When you splice a connector into a thermocouple wire, you actually create
two junctions (the point I missed ): one junction is created where the
thermocouple wire is attached to the plug side of the connector, and a
second junction is create where you connect the thermocouple wire to the
socket side of the connector. These two junctions are of opposite polarity,
so, if the two junctions are at the same temperature (as they would be since
they are plugged into one another) they electrically balance out one another
and will have no effect on the temperature measurement.

building like crazy, -john-
www.loram.org




_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Rick
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?




I was curious about this as in theory the additional dissimilar metal
junction will cause errors in the readings. As an experiment I tried
connecting a type K thermocouple to a digital thermometer readout with a
length of copper wire spliced in. With the thermocouple immersed in a hot
oil bath I watched the temperature displayed as I used a hot air gun to heat
the junction of copper to thermocouple wire. I thought I could see 1-2
degrees change heating the junction from ambient to as hot as the gun would
deliver, but it was difficult to tell the change from random drift.

I have forgotten if I repeated the experiment with a type J thermocouple.
The metals involved are different and I would not assume the same results
without testing.

So my conclusion is, for type K as used in EGT probes and often used for
CHT, you can use the non-thermocouple connector or even use copper extension
wire without significant error. And as long as all the cylinder's wires are
the same temperature at the change of metal, all the errors are the same
magnitude and direction, so with EGTs where only the trend is important, you
are doubly ok.

Rick Hole

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "John
Loram" <johnl@> wrote:

Thanks for that Sam. Your comment forced me to rethink the problem and I
realized that I had not considered that I was running both sides of each
thermocouple leg through the same connector (duh!), and consequently, the
effect of the dissimilar metals of the connector would be cancelled out so
long as both the male and the female pins of the connector are the same
material.

Cool! thanks again, -john-






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


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

Hi Rick:
When you splice a connector into a thermocouple wire, you actually create
two junctions (the point I missed ): one junction is created where the
thermocouple wire is attached to the plug side of the connector, and a
second junction is create where you connect the thermocouple wire to the
socket side of the connector. These two junctions are of opposite polarity,
so, if the two junctions are at the same temperature (as they would be since
they are plugged into one another) they electrically balance out one another
and will have no effect on the temperature measurement.

building like crazy, -john-
www.loram.org




_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Rick
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?




I was curious about this as in theory the additional dissimilar metal
junction will cause errors in the readings. As an experiment I tried
connecting a type K thermocouple to a digital thermometer readout with a
length of copper wire spliced in. With the thermocouple immersed in a hot
oil bath I watched the temperature displayed as I used a hot air gun to heat
the junction of copper to thermocouple wire. I thought I could see 1-2
degrees change heating the junction from ambient to as hot as the gun would
deliver, but it was difficult to tell the change from random drift.

I have forgotten if I repeated the experiment with a type J thermocouple.
The metals involved are different and I would not assume the same results
without testing.

So my conclusion is, for type K as used in EGT probes and often used for
CHT, you can use the non-thermocouple connector or even use copper extension
wire without significant error. And as long as all the cylinder's wires are
the same temperature at the change of metal, all the errors are the same
magnitude and direction, so with EGTs where only the trend is important, you
are doubly ok.

Rick Hole

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "John
Loram" <johnl@...> wrote:

Thanks for that Sam. Your comment forced me to rethink the problem and I
realized that I had not considered that I was running both sides of each
thermocouple leg through the same connector (duh!), and consequently, the
effect of the dissimilar metals of the connector would be cancelled out so
long as both the male and the female pins of the connector are the same
material.

Cool! thanks again, -john-


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

Rick Hole
 

I was curious about this as in theory the additional dissimilar metal junction will cause errors in the readings. As an experiment I tried connecting a type K thermocouple to a digital thermometer readout with a length of copper wire spliced in. With the thermocouple immersed in a hot oil bath I watched the temperature displayed as I used a hot air gun to heat the junction of copper to thermocouple wire. I thought I could see 1-2 degrees change heating the junction from ambient to as hot as the gun would deliver, but it was difficult to tell the change from random drift.

I have forgotten if I repeated the experiment with a type J thermocouple. The metals involved are different and I would not assume the same results without testing.

So my conclusion is, for type K as used in EGT probes and often used for CHT, you can use the non-thermocouple connector or even use copper extension wire without significant error. And as long as all the cylinder's wires are the same temperature at the change of metal, all the errors are the same magnitude and direction, so with EGTs where only the trend is important, you are doubly ok.

Rick Hole

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "John Loram" <johnl@...> wrote:

Thanks for that Sam. Your comment forced me to rethink the problem and I
realized that I had not considered that I was running both sides of each
thermocouple leg through the same connector (duh!), and consequently, the
effect of the dissimilar metals of the connector would be cancelled out so
long as both the male and the female pins of the connector are the same
material.

Cool! thanks again, -john-


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

Thanks for that Sam. Your comment forced me to rethink the problem and I
realized that I had not considered that I was running both sides of each
thermocouple leg through the same connector (duh!), and consequently, the
effect of the dissimilar metals of the connector would be cancelled out so
long as both the male and the female pins of the connector are the same
material.

Cool! thanks again, -john-

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:40 AM
To: Q-LIST
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

I just used a metal D-sub connector. Bob Knuckolls said it
was okay to use.

Sam Hoskins


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:59 PM, John Loram <johnl@loram.org> wrote:



Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for multi-pin
bulkhead connectors that are compatible with Type J & K
thermocouples?
I wiring the firewall foreword...

thanks, -john-









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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Epoxy for fuel tanks

Phil Lankford
 

Here is some more on Epoxy for Fuel Tanks posted by Gary Hunter.

Cheers,

Phil Lankford



____________________________________
From: trost.peter@gmail.com
To: britmcman@aol.com
Sent: 2/4/2010 10:51:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Re: Epoxy for fuel tanks


Phil,

Here is a article that Gary Hunter (the epoxy guru) wrote on epoxies
for fuel tanks.
It is the article I base my current opinion on for epoxies. He
explains exactly his
choice of epoxy. Very good info.

Peter

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

All the suppliers claim their "structural resins" are suitable for fuel
containment. And, they are - IF - the builder knows how to go about it and
does everything correctly. I have always been adamant about "post curing"
epoxies, especially the fuel tank. You can't buy cheaper insurance.

Safe-T-Poxy I or now EZ-Poxy 87 is probably by far the best in this
category, with or without a post cure. Chemical resistance is one of the
prime attributes of epoxies beyond homebuilding airplanes. They are used
for building fiberglass chemical storage tanks and piping and for lining of
steel tanks to prevent corrosion. In that industry the curing agent "type"
governs the degree of chemical resistance. Aromatic amines are by far the
best known curing agent type for overall chemical resistance - particularly
in fuels, solvents and strong acids. EZ-Poxy 87 is the only aromatic amine
curing agent available to the homebuilt world.

Next in line are "aliphatic amines". The original RAES & RAEF were
"modified" aliphatic amines. However, according to my tests the RAES
without a post cure was absolutely no good for fuel and marginal with. But,
the RAEF without a post cure was marginal and did just fine with a post
cure. Thus, the original Vari-Eze plans mandated RAEF for the fuel tanks.

Next in line are "cycloaliphatic" amines. Aeropoxy, MGS, Proset, and
EZ-Poxy 83 & 84 are "blends of modified aliphatic and cycloaliphatic amine
adducts". Modified - because the straight stuff has bad cure behavior.
Some modifications work out better than others. A prime example is the
Aeropoxy's sensitivity to temperature and moisture. I call these "quirky
cure characteristics". However, even the "quirkiest" of these curing
agents will resist fuel - IF - they are properly applied and fully post
cured.

DO NOT simply brush the resin on the inside surface of the already cured
fuel tank and expect it to cure like a 2 or 4 ply lay-up. This is where the
screen plugging flakes of epoxy come from.

Your original layups for all the inside tank components should be "wet" so
to be certain there are no dry spots, pinholes or voids. This is no place
to be too concerned about weight. Even the BID tapes in the corners should
be nice and wet. Peel ply only were secondary bonds will be needed. For
those of you than like the smooth surface of peel plying - add an extra
final ply of a fine weave light weight fiberglass deck cloth. It will give
you a similar smooth surface without introducing or hiding voids. Warm
shop temperatures and low humidity will reduce the curing agents "quirk"
factor.

There are many ways to obtain a post cure on the tank. Before the tops are
put on, you can use heat lamps to cure the inside surfaces. You can
pre-post cure the inside surface of the top too. After the top is bonded
in place you can post cure these bonds by heating the exterior surface with
heat lamps. The heat will work its way to the bonds.

OR, after the top of the tank is bonded on, you can circulate warm air
through the tank for several hours. I did this with the outlet end of my
vacuum cleaner inserted in to the fuel cap opening. About 140F is
sufficient.

RULE OF THUMB - If you can hold your hand on the surface to the count of 10
- the temperature is 140F or below.

Hope this is helps.

Gary Hunter
EAA Technical Counselor
Vari-Eze N235GH


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...>
 

Hi John,

I get all my connectors and electronic components from Newark. (Newark.com)

Cheers,
Jay


Re: Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

Sam Hoskins
 

I just used a metal D-sub connector. Bob Knuckolls said it was okay to use.

Sam Hoskins


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:59 PM, John Loram <johnl@loram.org> wrote:



Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for multi-pin bulkhead
connectors that are compatible with Type J & K thermocouples? I wiring the
firewall foreword...

thanks, -john-

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



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


Thermocouple compatible bulkhead connector?

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

Does any one know of a source (other than Omega) for multi-pin bulkhead
connectors that are compatible with Type J & K thermocouples? I wiring the
firewall foreword...

thanks, -john-


Re: Gulf Coast Canard Fly-in Sat. Feb 27, 2010 latest Update

quickheads2 <groups@...>
 

I added this to the QBA website under upcoming events!

http://www.quickheads.com/upcoming-events.html

Cheers,
Dan Yager
QBA Editor
Q-200 under reconstruction
www.quickheads.com


Gulf Coast Canard Fly-in Sat. Feb 27, 2010 latest Update

Brent Bourgeois <bjb3013@...>
 

Some have had the attachment stripped from their mail. I will try once more and include the info in the body of this email.
 
See the Velocity Aircraft web site for training opportunities at the fly in.
 
 
Attached is the latest information on the Gulf Coast Canard Fly-in.
Please let all of your friends know whats going on. Our intent is to make this a similar low key get together as Rough River and an annual event.
If you have any questions or comments please contact:
Brent Bourgeois, bjb3013@yahoo. com, 985-785-8299, Velocity N61VB
Victor Taylor, velocityoner@ yahoo.com, 251-377-5216 Velocity N93DV
 
 

Saturday February 27, 2010     8:00AM 
Trent Lott International,    Pascagoula Mississippi   (KPQL)
ATIS 135.175,  Tower118.575,  Ground 121.725,
Runway 17/35     6500X100
FBO:    US Aviation    228-474-1000 
Rental cars available through FBO and Enterprise
Fuel discounts, Fun and good food
All Canard drivers, builders and wannabes are invited. Drive in; fly in, spam can, other plastic airplanes and all those that can attend are welcome. The more experimental homebuilts of all types the better. Our intention is to make this an annual event. If you think there is the slightest chance that you will be attending please let us know so we can prepare things like food, bathrooms and transportation for everyone.  We expect several equipment vendors and aircraft manufactures to attend Including Velocity Aircraft and B&C Specialties.
Please bring your own tie downs. Be sure to check the weather on the coast, as fog is possible until about 9:00am at this time of year.
Plans call for hotdogs and burgers for lunch and boiled shrimp for dinner. Later in the afternoon we plan to have a hanger talk consisting of Terry Schubert’s Canard Cooling power point and the FAA Fast program.
 Rental cars are available through the FBO and there are several gulf coast casinos located less than 20 minutes from the airport.
We will provide transportation to the following local motels, all located within 1 mile of the airport.
Holiday Inn Express, 228-474-2100
Best Western Flagship, 228-475-5000
Comfort Inn, 228-474-3600
Shular Inn, 228-475-8444
Quality Inn, 228-475-2477
LaQuinta, 228-475-2477
Econo Lodge, 228-475-9820
If you have any questions or comments please contact:
Brent Bourgeois, bjb3013@yahoo. com, 985-785-8299, Velocity N61VB
Victor Taylor, velocityoner@ yahoo.com, 251-377-5216 Velocity N93DV 

 




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


Re: 3D model for Q1/Q2

Clive Clapham
 

Hi Pete

How about posting some screen captures or better still some files?

Clive gobxoy@rocketmail.com

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Pete <strangedays@...> wrote:

Yes.
I do.

nikogroup8 wrote:


hello,
does anyone have a advanced 3D model , catia or solidworks? respecting
strictly airfoils , dimensions etc ..
thanks!


q1 drawings

jany77@sbcglobal.net <jany77@...>
 

i have original quickie drawings with all the stuff and more for sale if anyone is interested


Re: 3D model for Q1/Q2

Pete <strangedays@...>
 

Yes.
I do.

nikogroup8 wrote:


hello,
does anyone have a advanced 3D model , catia or solidworks? respecting strictly airfoils , dimensions etc ..
thanks!


3D model for Q1/Q2

nikogroup8
 

hello,
does anyone have a advanced 3D model , catia or solidworks? respecting strictly airfoils , dimensions etc ..
thanks!

18361 - 18380 of 53546