Date   

Re: Active builders

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

Cody,

There is no answer to your question. The best data you will get was gathered in the Jan 2010 poll. Refer to that poll in this Groups Poll section:
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/polls] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/polls

Yes, you are moderated. This occurs because you either have not contributed the minimum number of "approved" messages or you did something in the past to warrant that status. All posts that have some relevance to Q's, flying, building, and/or motivation are approved.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: fibrejoe@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2011 9:12am
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Active builders

How many current builders do we have on the list?

Also, it seems some of my posts are being blocked or moderated. Is anyone else have this issue?

- Cody


Active builders

Joe Walshton
 

How many current builders do we have on the list?

Also, it seems some of my posts are being blocked or moderated.  Is anyone else have this issue?

- Cody


Re: Drag Test

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

All,

I too am happy to collect some data. However; I'm afraid that figuring out what the test should be/how to conduct it is over my head. I have tried (a couple of times) to type up what confuses me and I just end up confusing myself (a good indicator of "over my head").

For test development purposes:
1. Suggest something over 7000' DA. I can get that low now (cold temps) but in a few months that will be DA at ground level.

2. Suggest the Paul Lipps approach to determining TAS. In my opinion, it is very simple/easy to do.

Inaccurate information REALLY bugs me so would suggest enough "controls" be in place to prevent bogus data from being included.

Hth,

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22
http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike Dwyer" <mdwyer@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2011 6:47pm
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

I hate to be so negative but the prop on my 0-200A starts to windmill
above 120mph... So ya can't actually stop the prop.

Maybe if the test was set up this way. Start with a 140 MPH TAS at
7000' density altitude. Measure the speed (GPS) on a 120, 240, and 0
heading level. Then on a 0 heading measure the speed at a 200 FPM
descent without touching the power. Then you could probably get a good
idea of each type's drag with a small error based on engine/prop type.
This might also be a good way to see what your drag reduction fixes
actually did for ya if you run the same test after each improvement...

I'd be willing to collect that data as long as we know what to collect.

Mike Q200 N3QP


Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Mike Perry
 

Oh Duh. Sorry. Stopping the prop does seem to minimize prop drag in
the speed range where the prop doesn't windmill. (You must really slow
the plane to stop the windmilling -- close to stall in a 172 with a
metal prop.)

Mike Perry

On 1/4/2011 5:47 PM, Mike Dwyer wrote:

I hate to be so negative but the prop on my 0-200A starts to windmill
above 120mph... So ya can't actually stop the prop.

Maybe if the test was set up this way. Start with a 140 MPH TAS at
7000' density altitude. Measure the speed (GPS) on a 120, 240, and 0
heading level. Then on a 0 heading measure the speed at a 200 FPM
descent without touching the power. Then you could probably get a good
idea of each type's drag with a small error based on engine/prop type.
This might also be a good way to see what your drag reduction fixes
actually did for ya if you run the same test after each improvement...

I'd be willing to collect that data as long as we know what to collect.

Mike Q200 N3QP

Mike Perry wrote:
Mike wrote: "As you descend the load on the prop is less so the RPM
increases, this in turn increases the power out of the engine." You
could stop the engine then stop the prop -- that would minimize the
variables. It also raises the risks (will the engine restart?), so only
do that over somewhere you are sure you can land. Anyone with access to
a dry lake bed?

(One of my former instructors taught me that in engine out situations I
should raise the nose until the prop quits windmilling. It does seem to
give better glide ratio. Yes, he made me practice it with the engine
stopped, within glide range of the field. Engine restarts were easy.)

FWIW -- Mike

_


Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

I hate to be so negative but the prop on my 0-200A starts to windmill above 120mph... So ya can't actually stop the prop.

Maybe if the test was set up this way. Start with a 140 MPH TAS at 7000' density altitude. Measure the speed (GPS) on a 120, 240, and 0 heading level. Then on a 0 heading measure the speed at a 200 FPM descent without touching the power. Then you could probably get a good idea of each type's drag with a small error based on engine/prop type. This might also be a good way to see what your drag reduction fixes actually did for ya if you run the same test after each improvement...

I'd be willing to collect that data as long as we know what to collect.

Mike Q200 N3QP


Mike Perry wrote:

Mike wrote: "As you descend the load on the prop is less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the engine." You could stop the engine then stop the prop -- that would minimize the variables. It also raises the risks (will the engine restart?), so only do that over somewhere you are sure you can land. Anyone with access to a dry lake bed?

(One of my former instructors taught me that in engine out situations I should raise the nose until the prop quits windmilling. It does seem to give better glide ratio. Yes, he made me practice it with the engine stopped, within glide range of the field. Engine restarts were easy.)

FWIW -- Mike

On 1/3/2011 6:42 AM, Mike Dwyer wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200

Sam Hoskins wrote:

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...
<mailto:scheevel%40bresnan.net>> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D =
Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with
55 hp.

Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a
practical

test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some
airspeed vs.

decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about
32550 foot

pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed
stabilizes to 220

mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to
2000 fpm to

get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional
horsepower and

so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the
descent

rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more
horsepower

you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent
rate

(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If
this

chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the
range of

effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info
would

also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and
I would

be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building








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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links









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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: Upgrading auto plugs and wires / the art of lowerplug removal...

them_beans@...
 

Let me get my facts straight: I have a Revmaster 2100D, and I should have said that the wired spark plug cap is a 3/4" nut, not 13 /16".
Thanks,
Brad


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>
Sender: Q-LIST@...
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:48:15
To: Q-LIST<Q-LIST@...>
Reply-To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Upgrading auto plugs and wires / the art of lower
plug removal...

Which engine?


On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Brad <them_beans@...> wrote:




Wise Members,
The Q2 is finally in an enclosed space where I can continue my quest to
upgrade wires and plugs (maybe). Followed the manual religiously to remove
lower plugs, to a point. I don't have a socket (13/16") to get around the
plug wire that is skinny enough to get through the cut-out too! I've heard
of grinding a socket to get in a tight space (Horvath even offers one for
sale), but please clue in the Newbie!
Also, do I really have to pull the engine to remove the magnetos? Please
tell me there's a magic recipe for success here..
Thanks in advance,
Brad

--- In Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>, "Brad"
<them_beans@...> wrote:

Wise Members,
I bought a Q2 a few months ago and need to spruce her up. After sitting
for a year it appears that I have a spark issue, so I pulled the spark plugs
(magnetos are next, yikes). I have a mixture of plug types and queried Joe
Horvath at Revmaster as to the best course of action.
He mentioned the upgrade he does. I would need to remove the magneto
harness cover and send it in for an upgrade to 8mm wires at a cost of $300.
This enables the use of auto plugs.
A brief search of the Q Forum showed that several here have done this. I
am new to this engine and am slowly working thru the engine manual, but is
this an involved process to remove this harness (and are there diagrams to
get me through the disassembly?). I want to know what and where all of the
components are!
Thanks in advance for your responses,
Brad

Brad Boyd
N11FK
Wilmington, DE
302-377-4479


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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Upgrading auto plugs and wires / the art of lower plug removal...

Sam Hoskins
 

Oops, never mind.

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Brad <them_beans@...> wrote:




Wise Members,
The Q2 is finally in an enclosed space where I can continue my quest to
upgrade wires and plugs (maybe). Followed the manual religiously to remove
lower plugs, to a point. I don't have a socket (13/16") to get around the
plug wire that is skinny enough to get through the cut-out too! I've heard
of grinding a socket to get in a tight space (Horvath even offers one for
sale), but please clue in the Newbie!
Also, do I really have to pull the engine to remove the magnetos? Please
tell me there's a magic recipe for success here..
Thanks in advance,
Brad

--- In Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>, "Brad"
<them_beans@...> wrote:

Wise Members,
I bought a Q2 a few months ago and need to spruce her up. After sitting
for a year it appears that I have a spark issue, so I pulled the spark plugs
(magnetos are next, yikes). I have a mixture of plug types and queried Joe
Horvath at Revmaster as to the best course of action.
He mentioned the upgrade he does. I would need to remove the magneto
harness cover and send it in for an upgrade to 8mm wires at a cost of $300.
This enables the use of auto plugs.
A brief search of the Q Forum showed that several here have done this. I
am new to this engine and am slowly working thru the engine manual, but is
this an involved process to remove this harness (and are there diagrams to
get me through the disassembly?). I want to know what and where all of the
components are!
Thanks in advance for your responses,
Brad

Brad Boyd
N11FK
Wilmington, DE
302-377-4479


Re: Upgrading auto plugs and wires / the art of lower plug removal...

Sam Hoskins
 

Which engine?

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Brad <them_beans@...> wrote:




Wise Members,
The Q2 is finally in an enclosed space where I can continue my quest to
upgrade wires and plugs (maybe). Followed the manual religiously to remove
lower plugs, to a point. I don't have a socket (13/16") to get around the
plug wire that is skinny enough to get through the cut-out too! I've heard
of grinding a socket to get in a tight space (Horvath even offers one for
sale), but please clue in the Newbie!
Also, do I really have to pull the engine to remove the magnetos? Please
tell me there's a magic recipe for success here..
Thanks in advance,
Brad

--- In Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>, "Brad"
<them_beans@...> wrote:

Wise Members,
I bought a Q2 a few months ago and need to spruce her up. After sitting
for a year it appears that I have a spark issue, so I pulled the spark plugs
(magnetos are next, yikes). I have a mixture of plug types and queried Joe
Horvath at Revmaster as to the best course of action.
He mentioned the upgrade he does. I would need to remove the magneto
harness cover and send it in for an upgrade to 8mm wires at a cost of $300.
This enables the use of auto plugs.
A brief search of the Q Forum showed that several here have done this. I
am new to this engine and am slowly working thru the engine manual, but is
this an involved process to remove this harness (and are there diagrams to
get me through the disassembly?). I want to know what and where all of the
components are!
Thanks in advance for your responses,
Brad

Brad Boyd
N11FK
Wilmington, DE
302-377-4479


Re: Upgrading auto plugs and wires / the art of lower plug removal...

Brad <them_beans@...>
 

Wise Members,
The Q2 is finally in an enclosed space where I can continue my quest to upgrade wires and plugs (maybe). Followed the manual religiously to remove lower plugs, to a point. I don't have a socket (13/16") to get around the plug wire that is skinny enough to get through the cut-out too! I've heard of grinding a socket to get in a tight space (Horvath even offers one for sale), but please clue in the Newbie!
Also, do I really have to pull the engine to remove the magnetos? Please tell me there's a magic recipe for success here..
Thanks in advance,
Brad

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

Wise Members,
I bought a Q2 a few months ago and need to spruce her up. After sitting for a year it appears that I have a spark issue, so I pulled the spark plugs (magnetos are next, yikes). I have a mixture of plug types and queried Joe Horvath at Revmaster as to the best course of action.
He mentioned the upgrade he does. I would need to remove the magneto harness cover and send it in for an upgrade to 8mm wires at a cost of $300. This enables the use of auto plugs.
A brief search of the Q Forum showed that several here have done this. I am new to this engine and am slowly working thru the engine manual, but is this an involved process to remove this harness (and are there diagrams to get me through the disassembly?). I want to know what and where all of the components are!
Thanks in advance for your responses,
Brad

Brad Boyd
N11FK
Wilmington, DE
302-377-4479


Re: Going Fast

Martin Skiby
 

Pat, I sure hope you can catch a ride if the guys decide to come to Bakersfield. We got the tables made this past weekend and are getting ready to start cutting foam!

--- In Q-LIST@..., Pat Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Martin <mskiby@...> wrote:

I ran a race event at Wendover Utah in the Vari Eze right after the big motor went in.
I ran 235mph over the salt and it really concerned a bunch of people.  Remember folks
that the VNE is indicated airspeed in most cases.

Critical flutter speed is true airspeed however.

Pat


Re: Going Fast

Martin Skiby
 

You are correct.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Pat Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Martin <mskiby@...> wrote:

I ran a race event at Wendover Utah in the Vari Eze right after the big motor went in.
I ran 235mph over the salt and it really concerned a bunch of people.  Remember folks
that the VNE is indicated airspeed in most cases.

Critical flutter speed is true airspeed however.

Pat


Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Mike Perry
 

Mike wrote: "As you descend the load on the prop is less so the RPM
increases, this in turn increases the power out of the engine." You
could stop the engine then stop the prop -- that would minimize the
variables. It also raises the risks (will the engine restart?), so only
do that over somewhere you are sure you can land. Anyone with access to
a dry lake bed?

(One of my former instructors taught me that in engine out situations I
should raise the nose until the prop quits windmilling. It does seem to
give better glide ratio. Yes, he made me practice it with the engine
stopped, within glide range of the field. Engine restarts were easy.)

FWIW -- Mike

On 1/3/2011 6:42 AM, Mike Dwyer wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200

Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...
<mailto:scheevel%40bresnan.net>> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D =
Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with
55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a
practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some
airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about
32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed
stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to
2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional
horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the
descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more
horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent
rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If
this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the
range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info
would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and
I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building











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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: Going Fast

Pat Panzera <panzera@...>
 

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Martin <mskiby@...> wrote:

I ran a race event at Wendover Utah in the Vari Eze right after the big motor went in.
I ran 235mph over the salt and it really concerned a bunch of people.  Remember folks
that the VNE is indicated airspeed in most cases.

Critical flutter speed is true airspeed however.

Pat


Re: How to Become Moderated (was: Benefits of streamlining)

L.J. French <LJFrench@...>
 

Thanks for stepping up on this one Jon - for the sake of all of us.

Roger - now I'm going to get myself into the same trouble by saying that you
should know and understand the folks on this list better. Your tirades are
very meaningless to most of us and you carry on way too long on your posts.
Those of us who have been there and done that realize your shortcomings. BTW
- Jay has done some great work regarding the data collection on these planes
and has been at many a gathering sharing his findings. If his airplane was
flying you can bet he would be posting reems of data himself.

Regards,
LJ French

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jon Finley
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] How to Become Moderated (was: Benefits of streamlining)


Roger - Welcome to the list of moderated individuals!!

Your message was out of line and offensive. You apparently do not actually
KNOW Jay. That is too bad as Jay has been an asset to the Q group for quite
a long time. He did not suggest anyone go out and do anything dangerous.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: "Isaksson Roger" <scratchdeeper@...>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2011 12:49pm
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year








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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Going Fast

Martin Skiby
 

OOPs I forgot to post the CAFE web page.

http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/research_cafe400.php

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

I ran a race event at Wendover Utah in the Vari Eze right after the big motor went in. I ran 235mph over the salt and it really concerned a bunch of people. Remember folks that the VNE is indicated airspeed in most cases. I indicated somewhere in the 190 mph range at that altitude for that speed. Burt happened to be there that weekend in the Catbird and we had a nice chat about the plane and speed. He told me to "keep her under 260" and I would be OK.. I took that as a calming statement and remember it. Now the VNE on the Q200 is 220mph which is a bit higher than the Vari Eze if my memory serves. If you can get a 220mph indicated at say 5000 feet you would really be booking.

Jim is right however it is all about HP and a streamline airframe. in 1988 Gene actually beat Klaus in the CAFE so that has to tell you all something about the airframe. In 1989 Klaus just beat out Gene. That was the same year we went and raced our 80hp Vari eze and turned in 8th place with a stock plane and dirty wheel pants. My partner was 5th in his 0200 Vari eze also that year. If you go back to the CAFE web page there is some very interesting info. It shows me that the Q200 is a really efficient and fast design. Let's all just do what we do and safely.

I look forward to meeting all of you.


Going Fast

Martin Skiby
 

I ran a race event at Wendover Utah in the Vari Eze right after the big motor went in. I ran 235mph over the salt and it really concerned a bunch of people. Remember folks that the VNE is indicated airspeed in most cases. I indicated somewhere in the 190 mph range at that altitude for that speed. Burt happened to be there that weekend in the Catbird and we had a nice chat about the plane and speed. He told me to "keep her under 260" and I would be OK.. I took that as a calming statement and remember it. Now the VNE on the Q200 is 220mph which is a bit higher than the Vari Eze if my memory serves. If you can get a 220mph indicated at say 5000 feet you would really be booking.

Jim is right however it is all about HP and a streamline airframe. in 1988 Gene actually beat Klaus in the CAFE so that has to tell you all something about the airframe. In 1989 Klaus just beat out Gene. That was the same year we went and raced our 80hp Vari eze and turned in 8th place with a stock plane and dirty wheel pants. My partner was 5th in his 0200 Vari eze also that year. If you go back to the CAFE web page there is some very interesting info. It shows me that the Q200 is a really efficient and fast design. Let's all just do what we do and safely.

I look forward to meeting all of you.


Re: Mountain States

Martin Skiby
 

I think that was the plan Pat. I would love to get a group to come down to B town.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Pat Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:

Sorry, I misread.
I thought you were planning an out and back to BFL.



On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jim P <logistics_engineering@...>wrote:


Hello Pat! I'd love to but we gotta get Jenifer out of that seat first.
She's already planning on Laughlin.

Jim


Pick me up on the way through!

Pat


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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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


Re: How to Become Moderated (was: Benefits of streamlining)

Pat Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Phil,

You might want to go back and read it again. The points being made were
not relevant and they were done in a very inappropriate and intentionally
insulting manner, fitting of a troll.

Jay's proposal, although flawed, has a lot of merit. A fine-tuning of his
ideas could net a useful and fun flight test regime. Although not mentioned
(because it didn't NEED mentioning) anyone "stupid" enough to intentionally
point the nose of a plane at the ground with the throttle firewalled with
no forethought of Vne deserves what they get, no matter who recommended the
idea.

Pat

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Phil Lankford <britmcman@...> wrote:

Those with flying Qs lets put guns on them and have a dog fight. Them we
can test those high speed dive theories. Oops now I'm on the moderated list.

Enjoying the rethoric, but think Rogers comments were valid though perhaps
poignant

Phil Lankford



Phil Lankford


On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Pat Panzera <
panzera@...> wrote:

Thank you.

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:

Roger - Welcome to the list of moderated individuals!!

Your message was out of line and offensive. You apparently do not
actually KNOW Jay. That is too bad as Jay has been an asset to the Q group
for quite a long time. He did not suggest anyone go out and do anything
dangerous.

Jon





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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: How to Become Moderated (was: Benefits of streamlining)

britmcman99
 

Those with flying Qs lets put guns on them and have a dog fight. Them we can test those high speed dive theories. Oops now I'm on the moderated list.

Enjoying the rethoric, but think Rogers comments were valid though perhaps poignant

Phil Lankford



Phil Lankford

On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Pat Panzera <panzera@...> wrote:

Thank you.

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:

Roger - Welcome to the list of moderated individuals!!

Your message was out of line and offensive. You apparently do not actually KNOW Jay. That is too bad as Jay has been an asset to the Q group for quite a long time. He did not suggest anyone go out and do anything dangerous.

Jon


VW Special Airworthiness bulletin listed

Sam Hoskins
 

FYI - There was a note in the new Experimenter newsletter about cylinder
heads. This bulletin is related to the fatal accident of one of our guys,
Bob Justin. Bob survived the crash, but he was inverted and smoke
inhalation got him. The bulletin says VW, but I'm pretty sure it was a
Revmaster. Note that the bulletin is dated 2007


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/dc7bd4f27e5f107486257221005f069d/4a6335de983cb8b68625734c006353bc/$FILE/CE-07-43.pdf

18941 - 18960 of 56078