Date   

Test

Jim Patillo
 

Write a message...


Re: Looking for Terry Crouch

Terry Crouch
 

Found
 
In a message dated 4/26/2014 12:43:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time, David@... writes:

 

Terry,


Please contact me about Onan propellers.


David J. Gall

David [at] Gall [dot] com


Looking for Terry Crouch

David J. Gall
 

Terry,


Please contact me about Onan propellers.


David J. Gall

David [at] Gall [dot] com


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

David J. Gall
 

The LS-1 canard was designed to support a higher gross weight and higher flight speeds than its predecessor. Assuming the same design structural load factors and margins, it would, of necessity, have to be designed stronger -- capital letters notwithstanding.


But I disagree that the declining number of spar cap layers toward the tip is unsuitable design for the canard, whether GU or LS-1. The carbon spar in the LS-1 is also tapered, not only in diameter but also in thickness.


A little analysis: Both designs are (apparently) adequate for the design load conditions, which happen to be (for simplified analysis such as follows) two distinct loading cases: ground loading and flight loading. We must consider the bending and shear loads for each of these cases.


The root bending moment imposed by tip ground loads at 1.0g (stationary) is about 8/3 the root bending moment caused by distributed flight loads at 1.0g. (from Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain.)


Landing gear design calls for a 2.0g load factor, so any flight load factor over 16/3g (5.33g) would require a spar stronger in root bending than the ground loads require. So a six-g spar has adequate root bending strength for tip gear design loads.


The bending moment of the distributed lift load in flight accumulates quadratically from tip to root, which would call for a spar having a quadratically-tapering spar cap thickness toward the tips. However, the tip loading of the landing gear imposes a bending moment that accumulates linearly from tip to root, so a linearly-tapering spar is the right solution for landing gear loads, and is over-built for flight loads. Thus, the linearly-tapering spar is absolutely the right solution for this application.


The other consideration is whether the wing's shear strength has been carried to the tip adequately to carry the landing gear shear loads, since a normal wing need not be concerned with such loads. The shear load is carried by any portion of the shear web or wing skin or other structural part that has a vertical extent.


BID has a shear strength of about 290 lbs per inch per ply, so we need about eight lineal inches of vertical extent, or a two-ply shear web four inches deep, or a four-ply web two inches deep, etc. The shear strength of the wing skins may also be employed to help carry these loads. Add it up: In analyzing the existing canards we can easily find ample material to carry the shear loads and also (from experience) ample evidence that the deflections are minimal and properly accounted for by the designers. The shear strength requirement is so minimal as to be almost incidental to the task of designing an adequate spar and a wing skin that can handle the torsional flight loads and hangar-rash loads.


In summary: If the canard broke while off-roading through the wilderness, it likely encountered loads more than two times greater than it was designed for (safety factor of two), or else the previous repair was inadequate. Since other un-repaired canards have met similar fates while off-roading, I presume the repair was adequate.


Just my humble opinion,


David J. Gall


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

Calvin Thorne
 

Hi guys,

Thank you for the replies to my hit the ditch episode, the ditch was deep enough and the stop was immediate to the left tip of canard.  Damage was unavoidable.  I am reading all of your notes with a keen interest and will be following up with some questions to your points.

 

I don’t know the particulars on the LS1 and just thought it was the proper progressive step in replacement.  Am I wrong on this point?  Maybe I should be building the standard canard again.  I also thought if it had the LS1, the power plant could be upgraded later if required and the plane could be built as a trike.  What might be my options?

 

My questions on the tail wheel steering and cables will follow and I will send some p-mails to individuals to keep the list uncluttered.  This is very important to me and was the focus of my previous taxi testing.

Clarification:  1700 hours on aircraft, wheel alignment done, separate cables to t-wheel and rudder, springs on t-wheel cable inside t-cone.

Calvin Thorne

Cochrane Alberta

Cell & text 403 860-7582

Q2 (Revmaster) C-GMBK

Aircraft building web page:

http://users.xplornet.com/~vision/44/tailfeathers.html


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

David J. Gall
 

Calvin,


I like your attitude about finding and addressing failure modes before flight. I think that retiring your canard is a wise choice, whether you replace it with another GU canard or convert to an LS-1 canard. If you go with the LS-1, be sure to install all the elevator balance weights per the QPC change notices, and be sure to have sparrow strainers installed before attempting flight.


Regarding your tailwheel steering circuit: The torsional flexibility of the rudder pedals has already been mentioned, so please add my vote to eliminating the right-side rudder cable in favor of a cable through the center console for a more-direct connection to the pilot's right foot.


Also, please consider completing the "Jim-Bob six-pack" by adding a belcrank in the tailcone from which the separate rudder and tailwheel control cables should emanate, and adding springs into the tailwheel control cables per standard taildragger practice. The belcrank allows the tailwheel to have somewhat less angular deflection than the rudder and the springs allow the tailwheel to respond to a force rather than a displacement. Both will help to reduce tailwheel skidding and result in better tailwheel authority.


Finally, looking over your website, I noticed that your steel mixture control full-rich spring is riding against the aluminum oil cooler. The vibration of this spring will cause it to wear through the oil cooler.


Just my humble opinion,


David J. Gall

(Yes, of course: Do the main wheel alignment.)


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

David Cyr
 

Regardless which canard you have, what the tail wheel configuration is, or anything else you do to the aircraft, you have a tail dragger that has reduced rudder and tail wheel authority between 35 and 60 MPH.  The rudder doesn't have enough airflow over it and the tail wheel is lightened by the main wing producing lift.  The most important modification I found to improve handling was the David Gall wheel alignment.  You should make sure that the camber of the wheels is zero at gross weight (toe-out contributed less to steering stability).  BUT, the Q2 can still get away on you in a botched landing, so I found the best way to keep it on the runway in these situations was to use reverse aileron steering.  As a low-time pilot, I practised this for about 10 hours (over a few weeks) before flying the aircraft so that this counter-intuitive stick movement became a knee-jerk reaction, as there is no time to think it through when you are heading for the ditch.  FWIW
David Cyr


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

Allan Farr
 

"The LS1 IS a stronger canard" - Well that's it then, using capitals proves it.  


---In Q-LIST@..., <larry2@...> wrote :

The LS1 IS a stronger canard, but the fact remains that the wing design with the declining number of spar cap layers as one goes out the canard is not appropriate for a tip gear plane.

 

Larry Severson

18242 Peters Ct

Fountain Valley, CA  92708

(714) 968-9852

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of afarr@...
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:02 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Runway excursion - canard bent

 

 

Re "Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing" - who says the Ls1 is stronger?


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

Larry Severson
 

The LS1 IS a stronger canard, but the fact remains that the wing design with the declining number of spar cap layers as one goes out the canard is not appropriate for a tip gear plane.

 

Larry Severson

18242 Peters Ct

Fountain Valley, CA  92708

(714) 968-9852

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of afarr@...
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:02 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Runway excursion - canard bent

 

 

Re "Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing" - who says the Ls1 is stronger?


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

JMasal@...
 

In my humble opinion I think there are WAAAAY too many guys who know how to design airplanes (or anything) far, far better than the
guys who ACTUALLY design and PRODUCE airplanes (and products) that a multitude of others can enjoy. I base this opinion on a head 
of gray hair, 35+ times at Oshkosh where I have heard thousands of conversations on how every plane on the field could be designed
better. This is all just a flapping of egocentric gums until you can PRODUCE the data, ENGINEER the solution and DRAW UP the plans
for distribution. Meanwhile I guess I should just sit on my hiney, stall my project for another five years (while somebody re-engineers a fix), and maybe get a 
divorce, change/lose jobs, move (etc) and sell my dream project on the cheap to somebody who doesn't know better.

I loveya (still) Charlie but we humans are as imperfect as the planes people design for us to fly. Statistics, so far, show that you can't
design out pilot error (or as a builder). Another unhappy truth, though, is that in order to have pilot error you must have first had the joy of flying.

jim 


-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie
To: Q-LIST
Sent: Wed, Apr 23, 2014 5:45 am
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Runway excursion - canard bent

 
In my humble opinion, I think the LS1 structure is a complete mess. Canards are not meant to do off runway excursions, way over design loads with the tip gear reacting to the terrain.

I have seen a couple of off runway results for aluminum planes and they do not fare well either.

Fix the steering!

Charlie


On Apr 23, 2014, at 4:01 AM, <afarr@...> wrote:

Re "Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing" - who says the Ls1 is stronger?


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

One Sky Dog
 

In my humble opinion, I think the LS1 structure is a complete mess. Canards are not meant to do off runway excursions, way over design loads with the tip gear reacting to the terrain.

I have seen a couple of off runway results for aluminum planes and they do not fare well either.

Fix the steering!

Charlie


On Apr 23, 2014, at 4:01 AM, <afarr@...> wrote:

Re "Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing" - who says the Ls1 is stronger?


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

Allan Farr
 

Re "Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing" - who says the Ls1 is stronger?


Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

Sam Hoskins
 

Sorry to hear about this Calvin. those off runway excursions are a real bitch. I know, I've had three of them.

I am very curious why " During testing my tail was very light and I could hear the tailwheel shimmying or skidding around at the higher speeds.  At this point there was no rudder authority when using full aft elevator."

This doesn't make any sense to me.  In a stock Q-2 there is plenty of rudder and steering authority, especially at higher speeds. On your web site, http://users.xplornet.com/~vision/44/Q2fuselage.html  I see you have dual controls with the left cable going to the pilot's left foot and the right cable going to the opposite side.  IMHO this was most likely the source of your problem.

I have seen this type of installation before and have written about it..  The builder (Art Jewett) was complaining of unusual handling and had done several ground loops.  I took it for a brief taxi, then immediately shut it down  Very dangerous.  After some head scratching I realized there was full authority with the left pedal, but it was all squishy with the right.  He was losing all sorts of torque in the system because of the dual pedal setup. When you step of the left, there is an immediate response.  Step on the right pedal and the response was very slow.  If you rebuild your canard I strongly urge that you route both cables directly to the pilots pedals.

Take care,

Sam



On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM, <cbthorne14@...> wrote:
 

Runway excursion into grass and through 2 ft ditch. I am extremely happy that this occurred. What !! you may say.  I have done extensive reconstruction of this Q2, a major item was a repair to the left GU canard 3 ft from the tip and re-attatch/re-allignment of the wheel pod.  A week of low speed testing proved all was well. Then during a morning and  afternoon of high speed testing (up to 50 mph) on the inactive runway ... failure.  First excursion into a semi smooth grass area in the morning and a re-check of  the tailwheel and canard.   In the afternoon after about 6 high speed runs I exited the runway left 45 degrees and through a two ft ditch bending up the left canard. I could not get right rudder authority or steering.   The left  canard failed about three feet from the left  tip where I had done major repairs.  Not re-built strong enough it seems.  I believe a spar within the canard may have helped. 


This week the objective was primarily to get a feel for the higher speed tailwheel steering.  It turned out to be a two fold test, the repair of canard was the second and it was not strong enough for this incident. 


The future for this Q2 looks like a new Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing.  Also an improved tailwheel geometry.  During testing my tail was very light and I could hear the tailwheel shimmying or skidding around at the higher speeds.  At this point there was no rudder authority when using full aft elevator.

Disappointing...I felt I was close to being finished.  Better to find these weaknesses at the home airport.


Calvin Thorne

Aircraft building web page: http://users.xplornet.com/~vision/44/tailfeathers.html

(Sent from ASUS tablet



Re: Runway excursion - canard bent

Mike Dwyer
 

Sorry to hear that.  The LS1 For the Q200 moved the axles 2" forward if I remember correctly.  This might not work well on a Q2.  The LS1 won't take a ditch much better tho.   I'd never consider repairing a canard with anything but a cosmetic defect.  Fly Safe,
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Apr 22, 2014 11:35 AM, <cbthorne14@...> wrote:

 

Runway excursion into grass and through 2 ft ditch. I am extremely happy that this occurred. What !! you may say.  I have done extensive reconstruction of this Q2, a major item was a repair to the left GU canard 3 ft from the tip and re-attatch/re-allignment of the wheel pod.  A week of low speed testing proved all was well. Then during a morning and  afternoon of high speed testing (up to 50 mph) on the inactive runway ... failure.  First excursion into a semi smooth grass area in the morning and a re-check of  the tailwheel and canard.   In the afternoon after about 6 high speed runs I exited the runway left 45 degrees and through a two ft ditch bending up the left canard. I could not get right rudder authority or steering.   The left  canard failed about three feet from the left  tip where I had done major repairs.  Not re-built strong enough it seems.  I believe a spar within the canard may have helped. 


This week the objective was primarily to get a feel for the higher speed tailwheel steering.  It turned out to be a two fold test, the repair of canard was the second and it was not strong enough for this incident. 


The future for this Q2 looks like a new Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing.  Also an improved tailwheel geometry.  During testing my tail was very light and I could hear the tailwheel shimmying or skidding around at the higher speeds.  At this point there was no rudder authority when using full aft elevator.

Disappointing...I felt I was close to being finished.  Better to find these weaknesses at the home airport.


Calvin Thorne

Aircraft building web page: http://users.xplornet.com/~vision/44/tailfeathers.html

(Sent from ASUS tablet


Runway excursion - canard bent

Calvin Thorne
 

Runway excursion into grass and through 2 ft ditch. I am extremely happy that this occurred. What !! you may say.  I have done extensive reconstruction of this Q2, a major item was a repair to the left GU canard 3 ft from the tip and re-attatch/re-allignment of the wheel pod.  A week of low speed testing proved all was well. Then during a morning and  afternoon of high speed testing (up to 50 mph) on the inactive runway ... failure.  First excursion into a semi smooth grass area in the morning and a re-check of  the tailwheel and canard.   In the afternoon after about 6 high speed runs I exited the runway left 45 degrees and through a two ft ditch bending up the left canard. I could not get right rudder authority or steering.   The left  canard failed about three feet from the left  tip where I had done major repairs.  Not re-built strong enough it seems.  I believe a spar within the canard may have helped. 


This week the objective was primarily to get a feel for the higher speed tailwheel steering.  It turned out to be a two fold test, the repair of canard was the second and it was not strong enough for this incident. 


The future for this Q2 looks like a new Ls1 Canard with the stronger spar style wing.  Also an improved tailwheel geometry.  During testing my tail was very light and I could hear the tailwheel shimmying or skidding around at the higher speeds.  At this point there was no rudder authority when using full aft elevator.

Disappointing...I felt I was close to being finished.  Better to find these weaknesses at the home airport.


Calvin Thorne

Aircraft building web page: http://users.xplornet.com/~vision/44/tailfeathers.html

(Sent from ASUS tablet


Missing data

David
 


I have lurked on these sites for several years. I am looking for a spread sheet that had a listing of what people built, such as: engine, prop size, etc. I have noticed that a lot of data and info has been deleted/removed (in particular at the Q1 site). If anyone knows where the spread sheet is or can give me a copy it would be helpful. I am just interested to see some of the variances others have implemented. I am working firewall forward, the rest of the plane is worked out.

Thanks,

Dave R.


A step closer

Calvin Thorne
 

Hi everyone,
Well I  reached another milestone in re-building.  The propeller turns, causing a nice cooling effect, not that we want any more cooling this year in Alberta.   At last I can see the engine running once again.  I have had it outside three times and done numerous run ups while getting the engine instruments all set up over the last four days.  Looks like next week I can begin taxi testing.

Calvin Thorne Cochrane Alberta
Q2 (Revmaster) C-GMBK,
Aircraft building web page: http://users.xplornet.com/~vision/44/tailfeathers.html
(Sent from ASUS tablet)


Re: Barnstormers: QUICKIE Q200 * $500 * AVAILABLE FOR SALE

Bruce Crain
 


$500 Q2

mylittlemgb <mylittlemgb@...>
 


Just to put everyone at ease the $500 Q2 is just a very incomplete fuselage shell with a set of plans. The plane was started then the builder passed away about a year or so ago. They can't find any of the foam or metal parts just a started fuselage shell. 

Richard
Fast Little Airplanes LLC

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


Re: Barnstormers: QUICKIE Q200 * $500 * AVAILABLE FOR SALE

JMasal@...
 


So, it's come to this?  $500?
Yeah, that sounds cheep, but what comes after will eat your lunch... if you think you're gonna get a free ride to a runway ! 
j.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: Quickie List
Sent: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Barnstormers: QUICKIE Q200 * $500 * AVAILABLE FOR SALE

 
So, it's come to this?  $500?




On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:41 PM, John Loram <johnl@...> wrote:
 
QUICKIE Q200 • $500 • AVAILABLE FOR SALEQuickie Q200 with windshield started by the owner but he passed away. Full plans included. • Contact Tony R. Plant - SOUTHERN WINGS AIRCRAFT SALES, Friend of Owner - located Bethany, OK USA • Telephone: 405-826-1499 . 405-789-7402 . • Fax: 405-789-5395 • Posted April 10, 2014
 
-john-

14081 - 14100 of 56055