Date   

Re: Weight and Balance of N33QR

Martin Skiby
 

Thanks Jay,  Yes that is the question.  Our TriQ does have the large tank, but we have yet to do a total fill of this one and accurately measure so the numbers were for the "hope" we had 20.  Probably it will be 15 which will just adjust that weight.

I pulled the GU canard CG and it is quite a bit more narrow than the LS.



Re: Weight and Balance of N33QR

Mike Dwyer
 

Wow that's a heavy Q200.  90 lbs more than mine.  And with a gu canard.   Better make every landing a squeeker.

Mike Q200 N3QP


On Feb 13, 2017 11:37 AM, "mskiby@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 


Good Morning all.  We had the opportunity to weigh the plane yesterday and the following is the chart we attained.  I would appreciate any of you that have comment to let me know.  We have a GU Canard on this Q200 so the CG range is a bit different than the LS Canard.





Empty Weight                     
 













Weight

         













         Arm (in)                 
         












           Moment













CG













               Weight













       Arm













       Moment
        Right 359 38.625 13866.375
Aircraft 727 40.98 29792.46 Left 358 38.625 13827.75
Oil 10 5 50 Tail 10 210.125 2101.25
Header Fuel 30 24 720
Fuel Main 120 44.6 5352 Total 727 29795.375
Pilot  200 59.5 11900
Passenger 0 59.5 0 CG= 40.98400963
Baggage 0 78 0
Ballast 0 119.75 0
Totals: 1087   47814.46    




Re: Weight and Balance of N33QR

Jay Scheevel
 

Looks like the attachment did not attach. I have loaded it into the files section

Jay


Re: Spring Fling

Bruce Crain
 


New file uploaded to Q-LIST

Q-LIST@...
 

Hello,


This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Q-LIST
group.


File : /Martins_Weight_and_Balance/Martin_Skiby_WB_worksheet.xls
Uploaded by : jay_scheevel <jay@...>
Description :


You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Q-LIST/files/Martins_Weight_and_Balance/Martin_Skiby_WB_worksheet.xls


To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398


Regards,


jay_scheevel <jay@...>


Re: Open-source / community certification-like analysis of homebuilt air

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Brad,

Given that QAC, and virtually all kit manufacturers of that era would routinely report the most optimistic numbers they were able acquire (or imagine). These were rarely measured in a way that certified aircraft are required to do. For example, landing and cruise speeds were done flying way below the gross weight for the QAC planes. This is understandable, they were selling dreams, not airplanes.  But certified A/C have to report demonstrated performance at gross weight. True, these tests are at sea level with a crack test pilot, but at least they are standardized.

As an example of numbers QAC may have acquired if rigorous flight testing was done, I have computed the following numbers from my models for minimum level flight airspeed in ground effect (my model was calibrated to match the QAC Q-200 prototype, at sea level).

weight (lbs.)        Vmin (mph CAS)
900                    66.6
1000                  70.21
1100                  73.64
1200                  76.9
1300                  80.5

From my modeling, other flight numbers are similarly affected. So, I don't think it would be useful to publish fixed numbers for an aircraft like the Q-200 that is significantly impacted by weight. That would be more of an academic exercise.

My intention is to create realistic charts for my plane that include effects of density altitude and weight, once it is flying. For now, I am using my models to give me a feel for what to expect. I will calibrate them to match my performance as I do my flight testing.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: Foam

Jay Scheevel
 

I agree with you Dave. I am glad that I have been building mine from the get-go (and thanks again to all of you over the years!). The problem was created by QAC going out of business with so many kits unbuilt. They show up in significant numbers over time as unfinished/partially finished, incomplete kits, etc. But nevertheless, I agree with you.

Perhaps Richard will someday become the defacto replacement for QAC and people can get going with pristine kits. Would be fun to see a resurgence, given all we know now about how to perfect and fly these great planes.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: Weight and Balance of N33QR

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Martin,

Looks good. I only question whether you can actually get 20 gallons in the main tank! Anyway, I have loaded your numbers into a spreadsheet that I made for my plane. This spreadsheet has a function that graphs your W&B evolution while in flight for 0.1 hour intervals from full tanks to empty. I am attaching that spreadsheet to this response.

As mentioned, I have loaded your numbers into the sheet and verified your numbers on the spreadsheet are the same as you report above. The background that is embedded in the graph, is for the LS-1 canard. I do not have the one for the GU canard handy, but I think that the numbers will be close.

Someone more experienced than I (read that as Paul Spackman) can comment on the GU range.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: Spring Fling

Jay Scheevel
 

I am sure the turnout will be much higher if Bruce can promise he will sing a solo in Kevin's hangar :-)

Could not resist.  Small but finite chance I will be there.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: Foam

Dave Dugas
 

A few years ago at OSH, a bunch of Q builders went out one night for dinner and drinks, and the subject of buying a used Q or an unfinished project came up.  I remember saying that I wouldn’t dare to go that route, and I was asked, “ Why not?”.  This recent discussion on foams and other unproven techniques, pretty much sums it up.  If the plans are followed, you will have a structurally sound aircraft.  If you want to buy an unfinished project, you should be 100% certain that the construction methods in the plans were followed properly.  Just because it looks like a well constructed canard or wing, it could have flaws that could go undetected.

 Q dealer Bob McFarland sold me my kit back in 1982, and his structural failure is a good example of how important it is to make sure it’s done right.

Dave Dugas  N68DD

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Rob de Bie robdebie@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 9:15 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Foam

 

 

I haven't seen a direct answer to this question, so I'll give it a try.

As a general composite building technique, I would say there's
nothing wrong with bonding two foam sheets together. You have good
control over this bond, and you can inspect both sides after the
epoxy has cured. There is of course a small weight penalty. And maybe
the carving out won't be as easy. You should not go overboard with it
and bond a lot of small squares together.

The plans contain the comment "Suggested layout for cutting each
fuselage side" so the layout of the foam blocks does not appear to be
not mandatory.

One comment about the video: I would think the technique could be
improved a few percent bit by coating the other foam block with a bit
of micro before pushing the blocks together. Dry micro might not wet
well. 'Wetting' as in "the ability of liquids to form interfaces with
solid surfaces", as for example on this page on adhesives:

http://www.adhesives.org/adhesives-sealants/science-of-adhesion/wetting

Rob

At 12:56 11 02 2017, you wrote:
>Okay, I'm a little short of cash for wing and canard, don't want to
>get foam for wing and then for canard. I'll work on canard and wing together.
>So I am going to start with fuselage section now.
>Question: Q1 fuselage bottom and sides use 1"(thick) and 96" length
>divinycell foam. Neither aircraftspruce nor wicksaircraft has this
>available. They both have 1"x48". The 96" length foam which they
>have is 2" thick, not the thickness I require and really expensive.
>So can I join 2 sheets of 48", to form the 96" length I require?, I
>even saw a EAA video which talks about joining foam cores to get the
>required length :
>Joining Foam Cores.
>

 


Weight and Balance of N33QR

Martin Skiby
 


Good Morning all.  We had the opportunity to weigh the plane yesterday and the following is the chart we attained.  I would appreciate any of you that have comment to let me know.  We have a GU Canard on this Q200 so the CG range is a bit different than the LS Canard.





Empty Weight                     
 













Weight

         













         Arm (in)                 
         












           Moment













CG













               Weight













       Arm













       Moment
        Right 359 38.625 13866.375
Aircraft 727 40.98 29792.46 Left 358 38.625 13827.75
Oil 10 5 50 Tail 10 210.125 2101.25
Header Fuel 30 24 720
Fuel Main 120 44.6 5352 Total 727 29795.375
Pilot  200 59.5 11900
Passenger 0 59.5 0 CG= 40.98400963
Baggage 0 78 0
Ballast 0 119.75 0
Totals: 1087   47814.46    



Re: Open-source / community certification-like analysis of homebuilt air

Brad Walker
 

Maybe I'm missing something but one does have all the information. Or at least it seems that way to me. You have all the information needed to do design analysis (i.e. plans, actual built planes to test with, relics to do destructive testing with, etc.)

Maybe I don't understand but one should be able to derive the V-speeds appropriately.

-brad w.



On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Rob de Bie robdebie@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Hi Richard,

I've read many of the early Canard Pushers, a couple of hundred pages
so far, and indeed they make very interesting reading! When I wrote
my first posting, I was thinking specifically about the Q1 and Q2,
where the original company went bankrupt, and one of the designers is
deceased, so probably most of the documentation was lost. You might
need to reverse-engineer the design then.

Still, I think there's still a lot of information not available
publicly, that could be generated by a common effort. Just one
example: the design speeds used in the design: VA, VC and VD. If you
install a bigger engine, fly faster, you might exceed them. Yet I've
never seen them for any homebuilt design. Same for stresses, to what
stress levels is the design safe? What if you increase the mass,
which happens all the time. Knowing the design work would allow a
check of these questions.

Rob

At 20:50 11 02 2017, you wrote:
>Hi Rob,
>Most popular designs are well tested to destruction and improvements are
>tested properly.
>The Long eze is a good example, and if you read the Canard Pushers that
>Burt published, he details all the testing that RAF and his associates
>undertook.
>If you have not read the Canard Pushers it sounds like you would enjoy
>it, as it tracks the development of most of his designs.
>In this day and age of Catia modeling and multiple Stress simulations,
>its great to see that manufacturers are still forced to waggle the wings
>until that fall off to prove the guy with the calculator and pencil or
>the latest fatigue simulator has not got it wrong again don't you think ?
>
>Richard Thomson
>TriQ200
>VV283
>UK.
>



Re: Open-source / community certification-like analysis of homebuilt air

Rob de Bie
 

Hi Richard,

I've read many of the early Canard Pushers, a couple of hundred pages so far, and indeed they make very interesting reading! When I wrote my first posting, I was thinking specifically about the Q1 and Q2, where the original company went bankrupt, and one of the designers is deceased, so probably most of the documentation was lost. You might need to reverse-engineer the design then.

Still, I think there's still a lot of information not available publicly, that could be generated by a common effort. Just one example: the design speeds used in the design: VA, VC and VD. If you install a bigger engine, fly faster, you might exceed them. Yet I've never seen them for any homebuilt design. Same for stresses, to what stress levels is the design safe? What if you increase the mass, which happens all the time. Knowing the design work would allow a check of these questions.

Rob

At 20:50 11 02 2017, you wrote:
Hi Rob,
Most popular designs are well tested to destruction and improvements are
tested properly.
The Long eze is a good example, and if you read the Canard Pushers that
Burt published, he details all the testing that RAF and his associates
undertook.
If you have not read the Canard Pushers it sounds like you would enjoy
it, as it tracks the development of most of his designs.
In this day and age of Catia modeling and multiple Stress simulations,
its great to see that manufacturers are still forced to waggle the wings
until that fall off to prove the guy with the calculator and pencil or
the latest fatigue simulator has not got it wrong again don't you think ?

Richard Thomson
TriQ200
VV283
UK.


------------------------------------
Posted by: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
------------------------------------

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


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

Yahoo Groups Links



Re: Spring Fling

Paul Fisher
 

Bruce,
You are welcome to assume that, but it would be wrong!  ;-)  

We will all be in Decorah (KDEH) in northeast Iowa.  I'm glad you are considering attending!!

Paul

On Feb 13, 2017 09:13, "'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Is it  safe to assume it will be at Davenport Airport?
"Assuming Bruce"


---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Kevin Boddicker trumanst@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Spring Fling
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:44:29 -0600

 

Listers,
Once again I plan to host the Spring Fling with the assistance of Fisher and Crouch.
The weekend I have picked is May 19-21, 2017.
That time frame has the least conflicts that I know of.
So get it on your calendars!
Please let me know if you plan to attend or not.
Hope to see everyone there, a good time will be had by all.
As long as I can keep from, we'll you know.

All the best,

Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 410 hrs
Luana, IA

 



____________________________________________________________
College Student Discovers The Fastest Way To Lose Weight!
Capitalizing Calories
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/58a1cce22f01d4ce27624st03vuc
SponsoredBy Content.Ad


Re: Spring Fling

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Spring Fling

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Foam

Rob de Bie
 

I haven't seen a direct answer to this question, so I'll give it a try.

As a general composite building technique, I would say there's nothing wrong with bonding two foam sheets together. You have good control over this bond, and you can inspect both sides after the epoxy has cured. There is of course a small weight penalty. And maybe the carving out won't be as easy. You should not go overboard with it and bond a lot of small squares together.

The plans contain the comment "Suggested layout for cutting each fuselage side" so the layout of the foam blocks does not appear to be not mandatory.

One comment about the video: I would think the technique could be improved a few percent bit by coating the other foam block with a bit of micro before pushing the blocks together. Dry micro might not wet well. 'Wetting' as in "the ability of liquids to form interfaces with solid surfaces", as for example on this page on adhesives:

http://www.adhesives.org/adhesives-sealants/science-of-adhesion/wetting

Rob

At 12:56 11 02 2017, you wrote:
Okay, I'm a little short of cash for wing and canard, don't want to get foam for wing and then for canard. I'll work on canard and wing together.
So I am going to start with fuselage section now.
Question: Q1 fuselage bottom and sides use 1"(thick) and 96" length divinycell foam. Neither aircraftspruce nor wicksaircraft has this available. They both have 1"x48". The 96" length foam which they have is 2" thick, not the thickness I require and really expensive.
So can I join 2 sheets of 48", to form the 96" length I require?, I even saw a EAA video which talks about joining foam cores to get the required length : <http://eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=3907684429001>Joining Foam Cores.


Re: Radio Interference

 

Mike,
Remembering you're in the Tampa area, wife & I are camping at Ft. DeSoto.  Plan to be at N Beach today, Monday.  Would be major cool to see a Q200 flyby.  If wife has it her way we'll be at the beach every da## day for the next 1.5 weeks.
Keith Welsh

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:31 PM Mike Dwyer q2pilot@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had some radio noise in the airplane so I went in search of the cause.  I found my rudder cable was touching a unconnected shield on the cable heading to the non-existent strobe light powersupply.  In other words there was two pieces of metal dragging across each other.  This makes an intermittent static type noise in the radio.  Fixed that now the radio is much quieter.

This reminded me that 30 years ago I ran ground straps to all the metal pieces like the rudder cables, push rod tubes, ... every metal thing that was touching other metal things to ground.  Hint... this is a good idea to make your radio happy.

ADS-B report.  My old transponder always made a click in the intercom when it was transmitting.  It was no big deal because it was only every minute or so when the radar swept by.  That new ADS-B box is transmitting all the time.  My intercom makes these click noises every 10 seconds now.  I'm trying to figure out how to stop that and will report what was successful.  I will record it if anyone is curious.

Was a beautiful flying day.  Did a beach flight with the wife.

Mike Dwyer  N3QP Q200

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


Radio Interference

Mike Dwyer
 

I had some radio noise in the airplane so I went in search of the cause.  I found my rudder cable was touching a unconnected shield on the cable heading to the non-existent strobe light powersupply.  In other words there was two pieces of metal dragging across each other.  This makes an intermittent static type noise in the radio.  Fixed that now the radio is much quieter.

This reminded me that 30 years ago I ran ground straps to all the metal pieces like the rudder cables, push rod tubes, ... every metal thing that was touching other metal things to ground.  Hint... this is a good idea to make your radio happy.

ADS-B report.  My old transponder always made a click in the intercom when it was transmitting.  It was no big deal because it was only every minute or so when the radar swept by.  That new ADS-B box is transmitting all the time.  My intercom makes these click noises every 10 seconds now.  I'm trying to figure out how to stop that and will report what was successful.  I will record it if anyone is curious.

Was a beautiful flying day.  Did a beach flight with the wife.

Mike Dwyer  N3QP Q200

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


Re: Spring Fling

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

That's where I put important things. 



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Kevin Boddicker trumanst@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 2/12/17 3:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Spring Fling

 

Crude but effective!



On Feb 12, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jerry Marstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] wrote:

 

Thank you, thank you, thank-you.  I've written it on the outhouse wall.



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Kevin Boddicker trumanst@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 2/12/17 12:44 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Spring Fling

 

Listers,
Once again I plan to host the Spring Fling with the assistance of Fisher and Crouch.
The weekend I have picked is May 19-21, 2017.
That time frame has the least conflicts that I know of.
So get it on your calendars!
Please let me know if you plan to attend or not.
Hope to see everyone there, a good time will be had by all.
As long as I can keep from, we'll you know.

All the best,

Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 410 hrs
Luana, IA





10561 - 10580 of 55457