Date   

A Baffling good article

Sam Hoskins
 

I just came across the electronic version of the latest EAA Experimenter.
There is a very good article about engine baffeling.

Check it out.

http://experimenter.epubxp.com/i/90184/20

Sam


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

kd4ew
 

--- In Q-LIST@..., "pilot2212" <p32gxy@...> wrote:

Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me. Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike
Mike, I have a Dragonfly tri-gear project for sale in N. Central Florida.
Thanks, Jerry


Duct tape-NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT

jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

*/Best duct tape story ever/*

*During a private "fly-in" fishing excursion in the Alaskan
wilderness, the chartered pilot and fishermen left a cooler and bait
in the plane. And a bear smelled it. This is what he did to the
plane.*

[]

[]

[]

[]

*The pilot used his radio and had another pilot bring him 2 new
tires, 3 cases of duct tape, and a supply of sheet plastic. He
patched the plane together,*

*and FLEW IT HOME !*

[]

[]

*Duct Tape ? Never Leave Home Without It*





------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
inbox. Get started.
<http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3>


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

tr31961
 

I have a Q2 that I would like to sell. 
GW


________________________________
From: pilot2212 <p32gxy@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 12:39 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200


 
Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me. Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

Bruce Crain
 

Say, did someone fly into Grove Oklahoma this weekend during the air race? My hanger mate said he saw a Quickie there with a small amount of yellow on the side. Could that have been Bob Clark's TriQ200?Bruce
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5097197b39588197a11d5st02vuc


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

Bruce Crain
 

Huh uh!!! Can't have mine!! ;o) Honey Lamb likes to go see Grand kids in our TriQ200!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jeff <psj185@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 10:23:12 -0500 (EST)




Check out the experimental category at www.barnstormers.com

Jeff

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, pilot2212 wrote:

Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me.
Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike

<DISABLEDSCRIPT:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('ygroupsnotifications@...')>






____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/509705a6220645a50871st04vuc


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

Kevin Hufford <bushedpilot@...>
 

Hi Larry. I am enroute from Alaska to Tucson. Are you back from vacation? I look forward to seeing your plane if it isn't sold before I can get there. Kevin.

To: Q-LIST@...
From: larry2@...
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 07:56:29 -0800
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200


























I have a turbo q2 with a Dynon EFIS for sale. I also have a trailer designed to transport it without removing the engine. PDFs with pics a data available at larry2@.... Price for both $8500.
On Nov 3, 2012, at 9:39 PM, "pilot2212" <p32gxy@...> wrote:



Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me. Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.
Thx,
Mike


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


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

hargin
 

I have one I should sell, don't fly it as much as it needs to be.
Mitch hargin
N311dm
Tri Q2
Clarinda, Iowa
On Nov 3, 2012, at 11:39 PM, "pilot2212" <p32gxy@...> wrote:

Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me. Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike


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


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

Larry Severson
 

I have a turbo q2 with a Dynon EFIS for sale. I also have a trailer designed to transport it without removing the engine. PDFs with pics a data available at larry2@.... Price for both $8500.
On Nov 3, 2012, at 9:39 PM, "pilot2212" <p32gxy@...> wrote:

Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me. Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike


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


Re: Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

Jeff <psj185@...>
 

Check out the experimental category at www.barnstormers.com

Jeff

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, pilot2212 wrote:

Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me.
Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike


<javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('ygroupsnotifications@...')>


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


Looking to buy a Q2 or Q200

pilot2212 <p32gxy@...>
 

Anyone wants to sell their Q2 or Q200 to a good home? Please PM me. Airplanes located on the East coast or in the Midwest preferred.

Thx,
Mike


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

Larry Severson
 

The basic difference listed below is that the GU
has its max thickness at 45% of chord while the
LS1 has it at 40%. True laminar flow is
considered to start at 45%. The laminar impact is
that as long as the airfoil is thickening, there
is a low pressure system developed that actually
pulls the plane forward - thus the difference in
efficiency (as long as separation has not occurred).

The GU airfoil used on the Q2 is not a true GU25.
It was modified with a sharper leading edge. At
the time, it was believed that this would create
less drag creating a faster plane. Instead it
made for a more abrupt stall drop without any
drag benefits. Built to plans, the canard with
tip gear will break as the upper spar caps are
reduced from 5 to 4, if it is going to happen.
The designer worked with best info, but forgot
that that info didn't consider tip gear stress
loads. This is why GU canards have broken even
though it was designed to with stand 30 Gs (in the air).

At 06:44 PM 10/31/2012, you wrote:


Curiosity has got the better of me. Looking through archives to find a
numerical answer to the GU vs LS airfoil debate, I was not able to locate
any definitive info that confirmed which of the two airfoils was more
efficient. It is well understood that the GU has a separation problem when
there is contamination (rain and bugs) and resolved using VG’s. But from an
efficiency standpoint, I decided to dig in and perform an airfoil analysis.
I analyzed the LS0417mod and the GU25 airfoils, using an airfoil analysis
software called Javafoil. Below are the results computed at ~150mph. The
analysis is 2D, assumes laminar flow, and that no air has separated from the
airfoil surface.
I have posted the detailed inputs and analysis results to the files section
of Qlist group section. A summary of numerical results is below.
Analyzed both airfoils at various angles of attack from 0 to 15 degrees (0
to 10 degrees shown below). At each angle, gathered Lift and drag
coefficients. Calculated L/D ratio. These numbers are shown below. Notice
that the numbers become quite close at angles of 4 to 8 degrees. But GU
shows higher lift coefficients. This appears consistent with the common
notion that the GU is more efficient. The analyzed data shows that to
produce equal lift as the GU, the LS needs to have about 1degree higher
attack angle. For the entire canard surface that leads to about 8lbs
additional drag on the LS. So the entire comparison of the 2 airfoils used
on the canard comes down to a difference of 8 pounds of drag on a Quickie.
To put it in context, compare 8 lbs of drag to engine thrust of about
300-350lbs from an O-200.
If you see a fly in the ointment, please point it out. But then, this
dilemma was actually resolved about 30 years ago, wasn’t it?
_____________________________
Attack Lift/Draft (coeff's)
Angle LS GU ratio
024.4948.471.98
129.3539.541.35
233.8443.481.29
335.2346.211.31
438.3347.201.23
541.0649.291.20
642.0149.381.18
742.0949.531.18
840.9448.911.19
938.7148.501.25
1035.6446.911.32
_____________________________
Thanks
Sanjay

From:
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
[mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Allan
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:01 PM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .


I say it's more efficient. From what I have read the only reason it was
changed for the Ls1 is because of the contamination issues which can mainly
be solved with VG's anyway. I agree that the LS1 is stronger (because of the
carbon spar), but that's not an issue with a Tri Q.
Allan

--- In
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...,
"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
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>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
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>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
Larry Severson
18242 Peters Ct
Fountain valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852

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


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

Gary McKirdy
 

Hi Folks,

Sticking to the issue of structural strength alone, I know of 3 LS1 canards
on tail dragger Qs where the carbon spar did not fail during heavy landing
but the top skin delaminated (compression failure) from the foam core
approximately 1 foot from the fuselage in a chord wise bubble. The lengths
of this bubble varied between 4 inches to over a foot of chord. I have
never seen this mentioned before but suspect it must have happened in the
US as well as UK.

I deduced the weakness in the LS1 is the thin compression (top) skin which
can buckle before the spar breaks. Having seen this, here is a potential
solution.

If I was building (or repairing) one I would include on the canard upper
surface 3 "T" section layups made from bonding 2 "L" shapes back to back
about 1 inch on the vertical and 1 inch on the top horizontal when bonded
together set in to the foam span wise in to a shallow maximum 1 inch
straight hacksaw blade cut made in the foam at the root from the fuselage
tapes outboard about 2 feet in length. All 3 ends of each T can be tapered
about 5 to 1 to reduce stress transfer at the ends. If they were set 3 to 4
inches apart chord wise centred at 50% canard chord (excluding elevator)
this problem could be addressed.

The purpose here is simply to give the thin canard upper skin a better
surface area to bond it to the foam to prevent this tendancy to delaminate.
I would sand a gentle rebate for the horizontal of the T to sit in to keep
as smoth a cross section as possible. Flox it all in, peel ply or sand
later and let cure before laminating the skins on. The skins should now
stay where they belong. No known downside but use at your own risk.



Regards
Gary

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...> wrote:

**


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

Mike Perry
 

Thanks Sanjay, that's what I was looking for.

Also worth remembering: VGs produce some drag; probably greater than 8
lbs. for a typ Q2 install. TANSTAAFL. (See Wainfan's article in the
Sept. '12 Kitplanes for VGs and drag)

Mike Perry

On 10/31/2012 6:44 PM, Sanjay Dhall wrote:

Curiosity has got the better of me. Looking through archives to find a
numerical answer to the GU vs LS airfoil debate, I was not able to locate
any definitive info that confirmed which of the two airfoils was more
efficient. It is well understood that the GU has a separation problem when
there is contamination (rain and bugs) and resolved using VG's. But
from an
efficiency standpoint, I decided to dig in and perform an airfoil
analysis.
I analyzed the LS0417mod and the GU25 airfoils, using an airfoil analysis
software called Javafoil. Below are the results computed at ~150mph. The
analysis is 2D, assumes laminar flow, and that no air has separated
from the
airfoil surface.
I have posted the detailed inputs and analysis results to the files
section
of Qlist group section. A summary of numerical results is below.
Analyzed both airfoils at various angles of attack from 0 to 15 degrees (0
to 10 degrees shown below). At each angle, gathered Lift and drag
coefficients. Calculated L/D ratio. These numbers are shown below. Notice
that the numbers become quite close at angles of 4 to 8 degrees. But GU
shows higher lift coefficients. This appears consistent with the common
notion that the GU is more efficient. The analyzed data shows that to
produce equal lift as the GU, the LS needs to have about 1degree higher
attack angle. For the entire canard surface that leads to about 8lbs
additional drag on the LS. So the entire comparison of the 2 airfoils used
on the canard comes down to a difference of 8 pounds of drag on a Quickie.
To put it in context, compare 8 lbs of drag to engine thrust of about
300-350lbs from an O-200.
If you see a fly in the ointment, please point it out. But then, this
dilemma was actually resolved about 30 years ago, wasn't it?
_____________________________
Attack Lift/Draft (coeff's)
Angle LS GU ratio
0 24.49 48.47 1.98
1 29.35 39.54 1.35
2 33.84 43.48 1.29
3 35.23 46.21 1.31
4 38.33 47.20 1.23
5 41.06 49.29 1.20
6 42.01 49.38 1.18
7 42.09 49.53 1.18
8 40.94 48.91 1.19
9 38.71 48.50 1.25
10 35.64 46.91 1.32
_____________________________
Thanks
Sanjay


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

Sanjay Dhall <sdhall@...>
 

Curiosity has got the better of me. Looking through archives to find a
numerical answer to the GU vs LS airfoil debate, I was not able to locate
any definitive info that confirmed which of the two airfoils was more
efficient. It is well understood that the GU has a separation problem when
there is contamination (rain and bugs) and resolved using VG’s. But from an
efficiency standpoint, I decided to dig in and perform an airfoil analysis.
I analyzed the LS0417mod and the GU25 airfoils, using an airfoil analysis
software called Javafoil. Below are the results computed at ~150mph. The
analysis is 2D, assumes laminar flow, and that no air has separated from the
airfoil surface.
I have posted the detailed inputs and analysis results to the files section
of Qlist group section. A summary of numerical results is below.
Analyzed both airfoils at various angles of attack from 0 to 15 degrees (0
to 10 degrees shown below). At each angle, gathered Lift and drag
coefficients. Calculated L/D ratio. These numbers are shown below. Notice
that the numbers become quite close at angles of 4 to 8 degrees. But GU
shows higher lift coefficients. This appears consistent with the common
notion that the GU is more efficient. The analyzed data shows that to
produce equal lift as the GU, the LS needs to have about 1degree higher
attack angle. For the entire canard surface that leads to about 8lbs
additional drag on the LS. So the entire comparison of the 2 airfoils used
on the canard comes down to a difference of 8 pounds of drag on a Quickie.
To put it in context, compare 8 lbs of drag to engine thrust of about
300-350lbs from an O-200.
If you see a fly in the ointment, please point it out. But then, this
dilemma was actually resolved about 30 years ago, wasn’t it?
_____________________________
Attack Lift/Draft (coeff's)
Angle LS GU ratio
0 24.49 48.47 1.98
1 29.35 39.54 1.35
2 33.84 43.48 1.29
3 35.23 46.21 1.31
4 38.33 47.20 1.23
5 41.06 49.29 1.20
6 42.01 49.38 1.18
7 42.09 49.53 1.18
8 40.94 48.91 1.19
9 38.71 48.50 1.25
10 35.64 46.91 1.32
_____________________________
Thanks
Sanjay



From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Allan
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:01 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .

 
I say it's more efficient. From what I have read the only reason it was
changed for the Ls1 is because of the contamination issues which can mainly
be solved with VG's anyway. I agree that the LS1 is stronger (because of the
carbon spar), but that's not an issue with a Tri Q.
Allan

--- In Q-LIST@..., "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. . . .

Allan Farr
 

I say it's more efficient. From what I have read the only reason it was changed for the Ls1 is because of the contamination issues which can mainly be solved with VG's anyway. I agree that the LS1 is stronger (because of the carbon spar), but that's not an issue with a Tri Q.
Allan

--- In Q-LIST@..., "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. . . .

Bruce Crain
 

Wow! You are light with 693 lbs! Mine weighs 764 empty but has an MT prop which weighs more. Also have 500X5 wheels and tires.Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "fastlittleairplanes" <mylittlemgb@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:42:57 -0000



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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>




____________________________________________________________
OVERSTOCK iPads: $33.93
Get New Apple iPads for $33.93! Limit One Per Customer. Get One Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50907ce37c4ed7ce35af1st04vuc


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

Bruce Crain
 

I think you're right Paul it should be lighter except for the extra 28" I added. I remember conversing with Sammy and his calcs were a little bit lighter (don't remember the amount. Say maybe Sammy was embellishing just a bit.....ya suppose? So until someone builds a 200" Waddelow canard and weighs it without any slot cores, ailerons, etc it will just all be speculation. Sammy can you help me remember the calcs?Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Paul Buckley" <paulbuckley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q-talk 155 - Stay Safe. . . .
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:29:51 -0000



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






____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50907befb40ef7bef5f5dst03vuc


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

One Sky Dog
 

Hi Ray and Trever,

I fly Dragonflies with GU canards, they are flown at a lighter wing loading than Q's so they may fly different. I resisted putting the vg's on for similar reasons. One day as I was boarding an airliner I noticed a bunch of vg's around the tail. Start looking a lot of airplanes have them they work to fix things that need a tweak. The USA B-52 has hundreds of them all over the place. In my opinion I think a separation bubble starts at the root of the elevator and is always there but grows span wise as contamination disturbs the laminar airflow on the recovery section of the airfoil. The vg's prevent that bubble from forming at the aileron hinge line. The GU does have a better L/D than the LS1. The vg's are at 50% chord and are below the peak on the airfoil. This seems to not cause additional drag and did not slow my plane down.

It is a lot faster and easier If you want to get flying faster. My $0.02 worth.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson a.k.a. One Sky Dog
Flying 187CD Dragonfly/Corvair ,phase 1 test flight, 6 hr. Airtime 15 hr engine runtime

On Oct 30, 2012, at 2:01 AM, "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.he


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

Sanjay Dhall <sdhall@...>
 

The following links show results of tests performed on LS0417mod and
GU25(11)8:

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=ls417mod-il

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=gu255118-il

One way to compare 'efficiency' of airfoils is to look at Cl/Cd ratios in
our speed ranges.

At this site you can see and compare plots of each airfoil's performance, Cl
and Cd vs angle of attack at various Reynold numbers (a measure of
turbulence). So as an example, doing a comparison at the lowest Reynolds
number of 50k (least turbulent), Cl and Cd would appear to marginally favor
the LS0417mod for angle of about 5 to 10 degrees.

At the time of original design using GU and later redesign using LS
airfoils, the original designers would have looked for comparable
performance, without the downside (flow separation) of GU airfoil.

However, with the GU you add vortex generators. I am not sure how these
detract from efficiency during normal flight.

Similarly, with the LS, you add sparrow strainers. The sparrow strainers
surely add some drag given that they are about 1/4 -1/3 sq. ft. frontal
area.

But I would imagine that, rather than reinventing this wheel, such
comparison must be present somewhere in the newsletters and archives, or
published by QAC from their own research and airfoil choice in the past.

Sanjay





From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Perry
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] GU vs LS-1 (was Re: Q-talk 155 . . . .)





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

__.


15541 - 15560 of 55698