Date   

GU vs LS-1 (was Re: Q-talk 155 . . . .)

Mike Perry
 

Hello all:

I have wondered for a long time, has anyone documented the performance
difference between the GU and the LS-1? and the difference between the
GU with Vortex Generators and without? wind tunnel data? anything?

I think if I was building a single seat Quickie I would use the GU
canard but not otherwise. I suspect either airfoil is better than most
other airfoils. But I have no data to compare them, and no data to
compare the the GU with VGs to the LS-1. I think wind tunnel data
exists, but it doesn't include the VGs. I think you are crazy to fly
behind the GU without VGs (Murphy will get you!).

Anyone got some numbers?

Mike Perry
ps: I agree with Sam re the Q2 but not sure about the Tri-Q.

On 10/29/2012 6:01 PM, Trevor Fernihough wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying /
have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard
as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon
fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the
fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident
that the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam,
leaving me to have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in
Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe
that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by
installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more
efficient canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam,
is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost
cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the
Q2 with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built
to take landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so,
it could be / should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary
weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor

__.



Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

fastlittleairplanes <mylittlemgb@...>
 

First question I will ask is do you have the Tri-Q plans? If not please let me know and I will forward them to you. They give all the info you need to flatten the canard correctly GU or LS1. I won't argue with Sam about airfoils but I will give you another point of view. My Q2 still has the GU canard and I have no plans to change that it even still has the anti-hedral. I do also have 2 with the LS1 canard in flight I cannot tell the one from the other. The LS1 is stronger if the plane is built to plans the tube spar gives incredible strength for the gear as a tube should. The LS1 canard can be built without the carbon tube spar but I would recommend using the layup schedule for the Waddelow design or the Dragonfly canard with the carbon caps. Now that we are done cutting on and modifying my bird for the information needed to produce new safer Q's I hope to have it back in the air this next spring. With my present engine I won't be competition for Sam in the races but I still want to see what she can really do. The biggest issue we found in all the Q's is the wing and canard incidences this will make a big difference in how the plane fly's so to compare the airfoils you really can't unless you find two that are the same all the way around. On the foam, the orange is no longer made you have the option of blue and the harder to find pink. On the issue of weight my empty weight as a Tri-Q with the GU was 638 lbs. on the LS1 Tri-Q 693 lbs but both planes are not equipped the same. Weight can be saved or added mostly just do to your building process and the care you take to stay light.

Fast Little Airplane's LLC
Woodstock, OH
fastlittleairplanes@...
Now find us also on Facebook as Fast Little Airplane LLC

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Paul Buckley" <paulbuckley@...> wrote:

Really Bruce?
I thought the Waddelow was supposed to be lighter than the sparred version, and don't forget that yours has a longer span.
Anyway, the Waddelow has to be much lighter than the GU.

Regards

Paul B.
Cheshire
England

Embryo Waddelow TriQ-200

----- Original Message -----
From: jcrain2@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .



I am flying with a Waddelow canard without the spar. It works great but when I finished building it I believe it weighed a bit more than Sammy's canard. Don't remember the weight though. It is the LS canard also.Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:19:41 +0800

Not to worry Sam, Got your message from the thrust of your statement though.
Read &#65533;&#65533;. Stay with the LS

I know you are flying the true blue Q2 and not a Tri-Q Sam, but have you any info from
other builders of the Tri-Q doing so without the spars

Trevor

On 30/10/2012, at 6:51 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

Oops. I'm up too early. Should have read

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the LS canard.

Sam

Sent via this wireless gizmo.
On Oct 30, 2012 5:34 AM, "SammyQ2" <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that
> mean? Where does that evidence come from?
>
> Just some anecdotal evidence:
>
> Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU
> canard.
>
> All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were
> from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old
> newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard
> holds up well to hard landings.
>
> The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.
>
> I win races with my LS canard.
>
> For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even
> consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a
> GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school,
> then build an LS canard.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> (Married to a hurricane named Sandy)
>
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor.
>> I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
>> I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile
> with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more
> efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts
> looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how
> much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
>> I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
>> Ray
>> Melbourne
>> Aussi.
>>
>>
>> --- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>> Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying /
> have flown their Q's.
>>>
>>> I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard
> as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
>>> and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon
> fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the
> fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that
> the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to
> have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).
>>>
>>> First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe
> that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by
> installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient
> canard without the contamination deterioration issue.
>>>
>>> Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?
>>>
>>> If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam,
> is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost
> cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2
> with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take
> landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be /
> should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?
>>>
>>> Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Trevor
>>>
>>
>
>
>

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

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Woman is 57 But Looks 27
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508fc24fa3e01424f1498st02vuc






No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5862 - Release Date: 10/29/12


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


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Paul Buckley
 

Really Bruce?
I thought the Waddelow was supposed to be lighter than the sparred version, and don't forget that yours has a longer span.
Anyway, the Waddelow has to be much lighter than the GU.

Regards

Paul B.
Cheshire
England

Embryo Waddelow TriQ-200

----- Original Message -----
From: jcrain2@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .



I am flying with a Waddelow canard without the spar. It works great but when I finished building it I believe it weighed a bit more than Sammy's canard. Don't remember the weight though. It is the LS canard also.Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:19:41 +0800

Not to worry Sam, Got your message from the thrust of your statement though.
Read &#65533;&#65533;. Stay with the LS

I know you are flying the true blue Q2 and not a Tri-Q Sam, but have you any info from
other builders of the Tri-Q doing so without the spars

Trevor

On 30/10/2012, at 6:51 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

Oops. I'm up too early. Should have read

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the LS canard.

Sam

Sent via this wireless gizmo.
On Oct 30, 2012 5:34 AM, "SammyQ2" <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that
> mean? Where does that evidence come from?
>
> Just some anecdotal evidence:
>
> Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU
> canard.
>
> All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were
> from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old
> newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard
> holds up well to hard landings.
>
> The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.
>
> I win races with my LS canard.
>
> For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even
> consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a
> GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school,
> then build an LS canard.
>
> Sam Hoskins
> (Married to a hurricane named Sandy)
>
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trevor.
>> I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
>> I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile
> with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more
> efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts
> looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how
> much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
>> I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
>> Ray
>> Melbourne
>> Aussi.
>>
>>
>> --- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>> Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying /
> have flown their Q's.
>>>
>>> I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard
> as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
>>> and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon
> fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the
> fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that
> the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to
> have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).
>>>
>>> First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe
> that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by
> installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient
> canard without the contamination deterioration issue.
>>>
>>> Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?
>>>
>>> If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam,
> is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost
> cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2
> with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take
> landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be /
> should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?
>>>
>>> Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Trevor
>>>
>>
>
>
>



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Woman is 57 But Looks 27
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508fc24fa3e01424f1498st02vuc






No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5862 - Release Date: 10/29/12


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Bruce Crain
 

I am flying with a Waddelow canard without the spar. It works great but when I finished building it I believe it weighed a bit more than Sammy's canard. Don't remember the weight though. It is the LS canard also.Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:19:41 +0800

Not to worry Sam, Got your message from the thrust of your statement though.
Read &#65533;&#65533;. Stay with the LS

I know you are flying the true blue Q2 and not a Tri-Q Sam, but have you any info from
other builders of the Tri-Q doing so without the spars

Trevor

On 30/10/2012, at 6:51 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

Oops. I'm up too early. Should have read

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the LS canard.

Sam

Sent via this wireless gizmo.
On Oct 30, 2012 5:34 AM, "SammyQ2" <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

**


Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that
mean? Where does that evidence come from?

Just some anecdotal evidence:

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU
canard.

All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were
from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old
newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard
holds up well to hard landings.

The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.

I win races with my LS canard.

For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even
consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a
GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school,
then build an LS canard.

Sam Hoskins
(Married to a hurricane named Sandy)

--- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@...> wrote:

Hi Trevor.
I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile
with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more
efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts
looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how
much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
Ray
Melbourne
Aussi.


--- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying /
have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard
as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon
fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the
fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that
the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to
have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe
that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by
installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient
canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam,
is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost
cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2
with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take
landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be /
should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor






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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links






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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Woman is 57 But Looks 27
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508fc24fa3e01424f1498st02vuc


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@...>
 

Not to worry Sam, Got your message from the thrust of your statement though.
Read ……. Stay with the LS

I know you are flying the true blue Q2 and not a Tri-Q Sam, but have you any info from
other builders of the Tri-Q doing so without the spars

Trevor

On 30/10/2012, at 6:51 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

Oops. I'm up too early. Should have read

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the LS canard.

Sam

Sent via this wireless gizmo.
On Oct 30, 2012 5:34 AM, "SammyQ2" <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

**


Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that
mean? Where does that evidence come from?

Just some anecdotal evidence:

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU
canard.

All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were
from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old
newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard
holds up well to hard landings.

The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.

I win races with my LS canard.

For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even
consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a
GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school,
then build an LS canard.

Sam Hoskins
(Married to a hurricane named Sandy)

--- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@...> wrote:

Hi Trevor.
I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile
with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more
efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts
looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how
much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
Ray
Melbourne
Aussi.


--- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying /
have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard
as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon
fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the
fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that
the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to
have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe
that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by
installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient
canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam,
is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost
cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2
with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take
landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be /
should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor






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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Sam Hoskins
 

Oops. I'm up too early. Should have read

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the LS canard.

Sam

Sent via this wireless gizmo.

On Oct 30, 2012 5:34 AM, "SammyQ2" <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

**


Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that
mean? Where does that evidence come from?

Just some anecdotal evidence:

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU
canard.

All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were
from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old
newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard
holds up well to hard landings.

The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.

I win races with my LS canard.

For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even
consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a
GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school,
then build an LS canard.

Sam Hoskins
(Married to a hurricane named Sandy)

--- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@...> wrote:

Hi Trevor.
I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile
with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more
efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts
looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how
much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
Ray
Melbourne
Aussi.


--- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying /
have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard
as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon
fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the
fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that
the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to
have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe
that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by
installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient
canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam,
is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost
cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2
with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take
landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be /
should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Sam Hoskins
 

Hold on there cowboys. Who says the GU is "more efficient"? What does that mean? Where does that evidence come from?

Just some anecdotal evidence:

Look at the planes flying into the fly-ins. Most of them have the GU canard.

All of the mid-span canard breaks I have seen were GU canards. These were from hard landings. Even saw it happen at oshkosh. Check the old newsletters. Over the last 25+ years, I have proven to myself the LS canard holds up well to hard landings.

The LS doesn't need the hard-to-clean dragon's teeth.

I win races with my LS canard.

For what it's worth, if I was to build a new plane, I wouldn't even consider a GU canard. If I was building a new plane and someone GAVE ME a GU canard, I would politely thank them, donate it to the local A&P school, then build an LS canard.

Sam Hoskins
(Married to a hurricane named Sandy)

--- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@...> wrote:

Hi Trevor.
I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
Ray
Melbourne
Aussi.


--- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@> wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying / have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam, is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2 with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be / should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Raymond Johnson
 

Hi Trevor.
I also are about to start cutting foam for my Q2 wing and canard.
I`m interested to see the replies, as I am about to use the LS1 profile with out the carbon-fibre spar I have been told that the GU is more efficient, but I don`t want to put vortex generators on the canard, starts looking like an unprofessional and ugly surface. I would like to know how much more efficient the GL profile is compared to the LS1.
I`m looking to use the blue foam rather than the old orange.
Ray
Melbourne
Aussi.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@...> wrote:

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying / have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam, is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2 with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be / should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Trevor Fernihough <spilligans@...>
 

Hi folks,
Two question for the group of folk who have built and are flying / have flown their Q's.

I have cut the foam previously (years go in fact) to build the Canard as a Q2. Subsequently I decided to go in the direction of the Tri-Q
and bought the kit including the new templates for the LS wing, carbon fibre spars and undercarriage. The undercarriage is now fitted to the fuselage. When looking to recut the foam for the canard, it is evident that the new profile just goes outside of the already cut foam, leaving me to have to get new foam blocks (no simple matter here in Australia).

First question: Listening in on your chit chat, leads me to believe that the GU is a more efficient wing than the LS canard, and that by installing vortex generators on the GU, I would have the more efficient canard without the contamination deterioration issue.

Have I interpreted the facts correctly in that regard ?

If so, then the second question is: To use the previously cut GU foam, is it simply a matter of squaring off the inside ends of the innermost cores and laminating the wing just exactly as though it were for the Q2 with the shear web etc just as per plan. This was obviously built to take landing loads and begs the question that if now not doing so, it could be / should be laid up with less cloth saving unnecessary weight ?

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated

Regards

Trevor


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Jorj Baker
 

spam...You have to bid on this stuff...

Jorj

www.jbdigitalcinema.com

----- Original Message -----
From: jcrain2@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .



Fantastic news letter Dan! Great way to show current news letter and past!Bruce
__________________________________________________________
OVERSTOCK ipads: $30.93
Get 32GB Apple iPad for as low as $30.93. Limit 1.Day. Grab yours Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508ec676cf3846756017st01vuc


Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

Bruce Crain
 

Fantastic news letter Dan! Great way to show current news letter and past!Bruce
____________________________________________________________
OVERSTOCK ipads: $30.93
Get 32GB Apple iPad for as low as $30.93. Limit 1.Day. Grab yours Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/508ec676cf3846756017st01vuc


Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

quickheads
 

Hey all,
I just sent out Q-talk 155 to all current QBA subscribers.
It's a bit early, but Hurricane Sandy is bearing down on the East Coast
and I wasn't sure if we'd have power tomorrow to send it out.

Work
closed early today, so I will be hunkered down with the family at home.
(Unless we're told to evacuate.) At any rate, I hope all of you stay
safe and out of harms way.

Warm regards,
Dan Yager
QBA
Editor
www.quickheads.com [1]

Q-talks 84-155 (1995-current year) are
now available in the online archive:

PDF and Printed Hardcopies of
some back issues are now available in the store:



Links:
------
[1]
http://www.quickheads.com


A few observations

Rich Gillen
 

Hello Bob:

The younger(16-30), middle aged(31-50), 51+ Old farts. I'm 55, but I still
have an open mind, at least, I like to think so. The younger generation
are more into the RC/Go Kart/ATV/Tuner Car, Markets today. Most of them
Hobbies, isn't cheap today either, but their way cheaper than the so called New
Light Sport Market. The Ultralight Airplane market is pretty much dead. The
kitplanes market is following it fast. When just a Private Pilot License
today, cost $5000+. Most of those popular, Heavy Ultralights/Kitplanes, are
35+ years old. Most, of those older, popular plans/kit's for the
Ultralights/Kitplanes, have never been really Updated, which is sad, with a desktop
computer, sitting on about everyone's desk today. With Cad programs also
cheap today. Most all of them companies, have been out of business, for many
many years now, or were never more than, just a set of plans in the first
place. You have groups for each of these type of popular airplanes. A very,
very few, bright Guys, in the past, like Rutan, designed, and built many one
off's, then sold 1000's of plans for $$$, to fund their next idea/venture,
but never really offered much in the way of support, or any
upgrades/updates. Guys like, I think their names were, Jim Beatty/Gordan Saum, sold many
kits, with no real viable engine at the time for it. Most people, got their
support from the different group news letters, newsgroups, that formed
around each type of plane/helicopter. I personally consider, the Dragonfly,
Quickie(Q1), Q2/Q200, Vari Eze, Long EZ, T-Bird I/II, Challenger, Kolb, Rans,
and probably the most successful, the RV line. When was the last time you
heard of, or seen a new ultralight/kitplane design, with a set of plans come
onto the market?

I know Slipstream(USA), sold the rights to the Dragonfly, to a guy, I think
in, Africa. Last I heard, he went out of business. Do you know what happen
to it. Are the Plans still being sold? Were there ever any PDF versions?
They did have a Dragonfly Kit, called the Snap Dragon, with all premade
parts. Did the guy get that also? Since not Q related, you can e-mail me off
list at _Armilite@... (mailto:Armilite@...) .

Hotrods, are following the same line of thought. When it takes about
$15,000+ to do a basic frame off restore of about any car, or truck, the younger
guys, and gals, can't afford to do it. You go to any big car show of say,
5000+ cars today, and you will be real lucky, to see a person under 40 years
of age, who owns one.

You will see the same, Narrow Minded, Negative Attitude, here also, towards
any 2 strokes, by a select few, as you must have encountered on the
Dragonfly group. I would suggest, if you really want to learn about viable,
alternative engines, and 2 strokes in general, for your Dragonfly, to join one,
or all of those list, like Rotax, Jabaru, Hirth, or my fairly new Yahoo
group, "Sled Engines" for Ultralight's, Kitplanes, Hover Craft, Jet Boats, Off
Road Karts, etc. Today, we only have Skidoo(Rotax), Arctic Cat(Kawasaki),
Polaris(???), Yamaha, sleds. At one time, there were 200 manufactures of
different sleds, which used a multitude of different engines. Since the
Dragonfly is a 2 seater, probably needs 65+hp minimum. I would prefer 75+hp. Any
of the Skidoo/Rotax water cooled 2 stroke sled engines, 583/617/670 would
make 75+hp at 6500rpms.

_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLED_ENGINES/_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLED_ENGINES/)

For example, the other day, on ebay, I found a 2012, Arctic Cat 800HO
engine, with a Buy It Now of $3300, which has Dual Plugs, Fuel Injection, 162hp
at Sled 7700rpms. At Rotax's, recommended 6500rpms for their UL engines, it
should still make about 125+hp stock. It also, has a Turbo Option. I have
read some reports, with a Turbo, and minor mods, of being Dynoed at 250hp.
Not much different in size/weight, as the Rotax 582UL. They also, have some
nice 4 strokes coming out. The front of the 800HO block, around the PTO
end, has (4) 8mm holes, which lend itself to an Adapter Plate conversion for
a Gear/Belt drive. The 1000HO, has (5) 8mm Bolt holes.
_http://www.arcticcat.com/snow/category/crossover_
(http://www.arcticcat.com/snow/category/crossover)

For anyone who is interested, there is a guy 3D modeling a C90 on
_www.grabcad.com_ (http://www.grabcad.com) . It's free to join, and free 3D models
to download. There is a limit of either 35, or 45 model downloads a day.

CAM Spec's
C75/C85 lift: .382
C90 lift: .410 Dur: 245
O-200 lift: .410 Dur: 259

Rich Gillen
Ames, IA

=========================================================================

1a. Re: Hightower resigns!
Posted by: "Bob" bwilson4web@... bwilson4web
Date: Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:54 am ((PDT))

Mostly I agree with Rich including the NRA comments. But I wanted to add a
few observations since I bought N19WT, a Dragonfly.

"Large Print" Sport Aviation is another symptom of an older generation.
Heck, I was 61 when I bought N19WT because this was when I had the time,
resources, and opportunity to return to flying (owned a Cherokee 140 when I was
in my late 20s before I met my wife.) But even in my EAA Chapter and the
A&Ps at the local strip, age marches on and I'm not seeing the young
flocking to become pilots or own our style of airplane.

Now I haven't gone to a hang glider event but I can't help but think a lot
of youngsters are there. If there had been hang gliding when I was a
teenager, I would never have joined the Civil Air Patrol. (Well Oklahoma has a
few hills if you know were to look.)

As for 'gray beards' and 'opinions', the reason I'm here in this Yahoo
Group is my interest in a two-stroke engine which offended the Dragonfly list
owner. Apparently posting a question in the EAA forum and discussing the
technology was not what he wanted to read and he kicked me off the Dragonfly
list. Fine by me, an experimenter has to be self-confident enough to follow
their own dreams . . . experimenters are in our own and often new
territory.

The point I want to leave is there is an age problem with USA aviation and
sad to say, some of our 'gray beards' (or expanded foreheads like me) are
failing to see the obvious. When I can't get a hanger because all of the
parked planes that are not flying because it costs too much . . . well there
is a problem and barrier to new pilots. But more important to me, seeing new
experimenters.

So I'm not sure changing the names and titles at the top solves the
foundational problems. But I have an airplane to rework and re-engine. If the EAA
can refocus, I'm for it but right now, it isn't clear that Sport Aviation
is any worse than AOPA and Flying. BTW, I do subscribe to Pat's _Contact_
and recommend it to experimenters like me.

Thanks,
Bob Wilson


Re: Hightower resigns!

Bob Wilson
 

Mostly I agree with Rich including the NRA comments. But I wanted to add a few observations since I bought N19WT, a Dragonfly.

"Large Print" Sport Aviation is another symptom of an older generation. Heck, I was 61 when I bought N19WT because this was when I had the time, resources, and opportunity to return to flying (owned a Cherokee 140 when I was in my late 20s before I met my wife.) But even in my EAA Chapter and the A&Ps at the local strip, age marches on and I'm not seeing the young flocking to become pilots or own our style of airplane.

Now I haven't gone to a hang glider event but I can't help but think a lot of youngsters are there. If there had been hang gliding when I was a teenager, I would never have joined the Civil Air Patrol. (Well Oklahoma has a few hills if you know were to look.)

As for 'gray beards' and 'opinions', the reason I'm here in this Yahoo Group is my interest in a two-stroke engine which offended the Dragonfly list owner. Apparently posting a question in the EAA forum and discussing the technology was not what he wanted to read and he kicked me off the Dragonfly list. Fine by me, an experimenter has to be self-confident enough to follow their own dreams . . . experimenters are in our own and often new territory.

The point I want to leave is there is an age problem with USA aviation and sad to say, some of our 'gray beards' (or expanded foreheads like me) are failing to see the obvious. When I can't get a hanger because all of the parked planes that are not flying because it costs too much . . . well there is a problem and barrier to new pilots. But more important to me, seeing new experimenters.

So I'm not sure changing the names and titles at the top solves the foundational problems. But I have an airplane to rework and re-engine. If the EAA can refocus, I'm for it but right now, it isn't clear that Sport Aviation is any worse than AOPA and Flying. BTW, I do subscribe to Pat's _Contact_ and recommend it to experimenters like me.

Thanks,
Bob Wilson

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

Pat:

It usually takes a whole lot more, than just one person, to do anything,
especially like Banning
Ultralight's, and Experimental's from an Organization, such as the EAA. It
has become the mind set,
of the Top Members in the EAA in general.

Just like these different newsgroups, Pat, you may have 100 to 1500+
members in each Type of newsgroup, but usually only 4-8 people are really
active, who post photo's/files/web links, answer people's questions. Each group,
has it's same 2-3 know it all's, your same 2-3 idiot's calling out to Ban
someone, because they don't like something a person says, or something they
use, like a 2 stroke engine on their airplane, or a new type of Lithium
Battery, etc. Most people just lurk, on newsgroups, and try to sift thru all
the Bull Crap, which is usually about 90% on any newsgroup. The EAA
Organization, is just another NewsGroup, only you PAY to join it. How many members
today x how many $$$ to join?

The FAA, has always had a pretty Negative attitude towards Ultralight's,
and Experimental's(Kitplanes) also. That's why, We have some of these Stupid
Rules, that have nothing, to do with Safety. It's all about Control, & Big
$$$. Any Airport, that a 747 can't land at, is in Danger of being closed
today. Last I heard, there was
only 50 places a 747 can land in this country(USA). So out of 7000+ paved
airstrips, and about 2000+ grass
airstrips, that's a whole lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made. Don't think it
can't happen to your airport. What's your airstrips, Land value alone, in
today's $$$? Around Ames, IA, middle USA it's $10,000+ an acre, or 500,000
for Commercial acre Property. Don't expect the General Public, to stand up
for you either, most of them, consider most Pilots, as just Rich Snobs,
with their BIG EXPENSIVE TOYS.

A few years ago, they even talked about, not even having an Ultralight
Area, at Oshkosh. That has
become the trend for at least the last 10-12+ years, ever since they even
started talking about the new
great, Light Sport Market. They have raised there prices so high, to have a
Booth/Space at Osh to squeeze the smaller ones out. All their interested
in, is making big $$$ from the Big Corporations. They have forgotten the
Roots, of the EAA Organization. What the big "E" really means. Most people,
don't even now WHO, the President is, of the EAA, let alone all the minions
underneath him. Heck, most people in this country today, couldn't even tell
you WHO, the Vice President of the United States is, let alone the People
underneath him.

You want to do a good story Pat, start at the TOP of the EAA, and FAA food
chains, and work your way down, with a brief note about each person.

A Photo
Name
Age
Planes built, or owned
Total Hrs Flying to date
Years with EAA/FAA, at what positions
Their Education Level
Other Jobs they have held
Their EAA/FAA wages
etc.

I think you will get an eye opener! That's WHY, I quite the EAA years ago.

I also quite the NRA many years ago to, for similar reasons. I had been a
member for 20+ years. When that Organization also, abandoned the guys/gals
with legally owned Machine-guns & Suppressors, and also let the Assault
Rifle Ban go thru, Banning over 100 Types of guns, that had nothing even to do
with "Assault Rifles". The weapon of choice, for Criminals is still a
pistol, or a shotgun. There are over 480,000+ legally owned machine-guns in this
country. Most people don't even now they can be legally owned in most
states. I know of only one crime, committed with a legally owned machine-gun in
over 65+ years in the USA, and He was a Sheriff at the time, I think he
killed his wife, & her lover in his bed. :)

Just My 2 Cents
Rich Gillen
==========================================================

2f. Re: Hightower resigns!
Posted by: "Patrick Panzera" editor@... pat_panzera
Date: Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:18 pm ((PDT))

Under his leadership, we were headed down a path that would ultimately
exclude homebuilt aircraft.
I sat in a meeting of everyone in publications (a few weeks before Tom
resigned) and at one point the discussion literally turned to removing the
E word from the name of the organization.







Hightower resigns!

Rich Gillen
 

Pat:

It usually takes a whole lot more, than just one person, to do anything,
especially like Banning
Ultralight's, and Experimental's from an Organization, such as the EAA. It
has become the mind set,
of the Top Members in the EAA in general.

Just like these different newsgroups, Pat, you may have 100 to 1500+
members in each Type of newsgroup, but usually only 4-8 people are really
active, who post photo's/files/web links, answer people's questions. Each group,
has it's same 2-3 know it all's, your same 2-3 idiot's calling out to Ban
someone, because they don't like something a person says, or something they
use, like a 2 stroke engine on their airplane, or a new type of Lithium
Battery, etc. Most people just lurk, on newsgroups, and try to sift thru all
the Bull Crap, which is usually about 90% on any newsgroup. The EAA
Organization, is just another NewsGroup, only you PAY to join it. How many members
today x how many $$$ to join?

The FAA, has always had a pretty Negative attitude towards Ultralight's,
and Experimental's(Kitplanes) also. That's why, We have some of these Stupid
Rules, that have nothing, to do with Safety. It's all about Control, & Big
$$$. Any Airport, that a 747 can't land at, is in Danger of being closed
today. Last I heard, there was
only 50 places a 747 can land in this country(USA). So out of 7000+ paved
airstrips, and about 2000+ grass
airstrips, that's a whole lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made. Don't think it
can't happen to your airport. What's your airstrips, Land value alone, in
today's $$$? Around Ames, IA, middle USA it's $10,000+ an acre, or 500,000
for Commercial acre Property. Don't expect the General Public, to stand up
for you either, most of them, consider most Pilots, as just Rich Snobs,
with their BIG EXPENSIVE TOYS.

A few years ago, they even talked about, not even having an Ultralight
Area, at Oshkosh. That has
become the trend for at least the last 10-12+ years, ever since they even
started talking about the new
great, Light Sport Market. They have raised there prices so high, to have a
Booth/Space at Osh to squeeze the smaller ones out. All their interested
in, is making big $$$ from the Big Corporations. They have forgotten the
Roots, of the EAA Organization. What the big "E" really means. Most people,
don't even now WHO, the President is, of the EAA, let alone all the minions
underneath him. Heck, most people in this country today, couldn't even tell
you WHO, the Vice President of the United States is, let alone the People
underneath him.

You want to do a good story Pat, start at the TOP of the EAA, and FAA food
chains, and work your way down, with a brief note about each person.

A Photo
Name
Age
Planes built, or owned
Total Hrs Flying to date
Years with EAA/FAA, at what positions
Their Education Level
Other Jobs they have held
Their EAA/FAA wages
etc.

I think you will get an eye opener! That's WHY, I quite the EAA years ago.

I also quite the NRA many years ago to, for similar reasons. I had been a
member for 20+ years. When that Organization also, abandoned the guys/gals
with legally owned Machine-guns & Suppressors, and also let the Assault
Rifle Ban go thru, Banning over 100 Types of guns, that had nothing even to do
with "Assault Rifles". The weapon of choice, for Criminals is still a
pistol, or a shotgun. There are over 480,000+ legally owned machine-guns in this
country. Most people don't even now they can be legally owned in most
states. I know of only one crime, committed with a legally owned machine-gun in
over 65+ years in the USA, and He was a Sheriff at the time, I think he
killed his wife, & her lover in his bed. :)

Just My 2 Cents
Rich Gillen
==========================================================

2f. Re: Hightower resigns!
Posted by: "Patrick Panzera" editor@... pat_panzera
Date: Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:18 pm ((PDT))

Under his leadership, we were headed down a path that would ultimately
exclude homebuilt aircraft.
I sat in a meeting of everyone in publications (a few weeks before Tom
resigned) and at one point the discussion literally turned to removing the
E word from the name of the organization.


Re: Stall characteristics

Allan Farr
 

Hi. Why replace the GU? It is strong enough for a 912, and more efficient than the LS1. If you are worried about contamination then use VG's.
Allan

--- In Q-LIST@..., "johnogr300" <johnogr@...> wrote:

Hi All
I`m looking to build the Q200 canard (LS1) for my Q2.
As I am installing a Rotax 912, with the lesser engine weight, would I have problems with the main wing stalling before the canard?
Thanks Ray


Re: Hightower resigns!

Brad Walker
 

Thanks for the comments. I understand that everyone is concerned, including
myself, that EAA seems to be moving away from being focused solely on the
homebuilder. I'm not certain this can change direction without changes in
the board of directors.

But, having the members be more involved in effecting that change is
probably a very good thing.

-brad w.


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Patrick Panzera <editor@...
wrote:
**


Under his leadership, we were headed down a path that would ultimately
exclude homebuilt aircraft.
I sat in a meeting of everyone in publications (a few weeks before Tom
resigned) and at one point the discussion literally turned to removing the
E word from the name of the organization.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Brad Walker <bwalker@...> wrote:

**


Why is it such a good thing that Rod Hightower is resigning and why does
that make you happy?

I'm just curious as I don't really care if he stays or goes. But, just
trying to understand your perspective.

-brad w.

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



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


Found on Barnstormer: QUICKIE 2 Revmaster 2100DQ engine

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

QUICKIE 2 http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_714059_Quickie+2.html .
$9,000 . FOR SALE . Quickie 2 for sale, Revmaster 2100DQ engine with EMPI
dual plug heads. All current mods installed. . View Details at
Barnstormers.Com http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=714059

-john-


Re: Hightower resigns!

Patrick Panzera
 

Under his leadership, we were headed down a path that would ultimately
exclude homebuilt aircraft.
I sat in a meeting of everyone in publications (a few weeks before Tom
resigned) and at one point the discussion literally turned to removing the
E word from the name of the organization.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Brad Walker <bwalker@...> wrote:

**


Why is it such a good thing that Rod Hightower is resigning and why does
that make you happy?

I'm just curious as I don't really care if he stays or goes. But, just
trying to understand your perspective.

-brad w.


Re: Hightower resigns!

Brad Walker
 

Why is it such a good thing that Rod Hightower is resigning and why does
that make you happy?

I'm just curious as I don't really care if he stays or goes. But, just
trying to understand your perspective.

-brad w.

On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Patrick Panzera <editor@...>
wrote:

Yes it is! :)


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chris Adkins <ccadkins1@...
wrote:

**


Is that a "Thanks" for resigning ?!! :-D

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Patrick Panzera <
editor@...>
wrote:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-10-22_hightower-resigns-as-EAA-president-CEO.asp

--
Thanks!

Patrick Panzera

15341 - 15360 of 55478