Date   

Re: New Flight Video

Dan Lee
 

Hi Bruce,
I’m out of KBVS, in the Pacific Northwest. 
Nearby Arlington (AWO) fly-in is this week... 
Any Q’s coming?


On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:05 AM 'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Yippee for Mike and Dan!  Great job you guys!
Where do you live Dan!
Bruce

Please note: message attached



From: "dl98257 Dan98257@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "dl98257 Dan98257@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 20:36:14 -0700
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video
 

Hey Mike,
Very nicely done!
I’m getting ready for my first flight in a Tri-Q200. 
Thanks for sharing these videos. Great stuff!
Dan
N200TQ
Fuel flow test, and weight and balance day...👍

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 4:56 AM q2pilot@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY


2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200


There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!


Mike Q200 N3QP


--
Daniel Lee
N200TQ
202.6940

--
Daniel Lee
N200TQ
202.6940


Re: New Flight Video

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Q's make RV's happy. Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: "Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 7/1/18 9:53 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video

 

Q's are just happier when they share a hangar with an RV!!

Paul

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 18:27 'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Great video, Mike. Just a question about the first scene:  What is it about Q’s that attracts RV’s?  A very common phenomenon, right Bruce and Paul?

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 5:55 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video

 

 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY

 

2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200

 

There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!

 

Mike Q200 N3QP

 


Re: New Flight Video

Bruce Crain
 


Re: New Flight Video

Paul Fisher
 

Q's are just happier when they share a hangar with an RV!!

Paul

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 18:27 'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Great video, Mike. Just a question about the first scene:  What is it about Q’s that attracts RV’s?  A very common phenomenon, right Bruce and Paul?

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 5:55 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video

 

 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY

 

2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200

 

There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!

 

Mike Q200 N3QP

 


Re: New Flight Video

Jay Scheevel
 

Great video, Mike. Just a question about the first scene:  What is it about Q’s that attracts RV’s?  A very common phenomenon, right Bruce and Paul?

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 5:55 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video

 

 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY

 

2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200

 

There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!

 

Mike Q200 N3QP

 


Re: New Flight Video

Bruce Crain
 


Re: New Flight Video

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Cool N-number

-------- Original message --------
From: "dl98257 Dan98257@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/30/18 11:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] New Flight Video

 

Hey Mike,
Very nicely done!
I’m getting ready for my first flight in a Tri-Q200. 
Thanks for sharing these videos. Great stuff!
Dan
N200TQ
Fuel flow test, and weight and balance day...👍

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 4:56 AM q2pilot@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY


2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200


There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!


Mike Q200 N3QP


--
Daniel Lee
N200TQ
202.6940


Re: New Flight Video

Dan Lee
 

Hey Mike,
Very nicely done!
I’m getting ready for my first flight in a Tri-Q200. 
Thanks for sharing these videos. Great stuff!
Dan
N200TQ
Fuel flow test, and weight and balance day...👍


On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 4:56 AM q2pilot@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY


2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200


There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!


Mike Q200 N3QP


--
Daniel Lee
N200TQ
202.6940


Re: New Flight Video

Jerry Marstall
 

Great video. Thx  Mike. 
Jerry

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 7:56 AM q2pilot@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY


2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200


There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!


Mike Q200 N3QP



New Flight Video

Mike Dwyer
 

https://youtu.be/mdWogyKRxYY


2018 June Flight in rather wet conditions Quickie Q200


There was a nice full sky double rainbow but it is barely visible in the video.  3 Cameras were used, one forward outside, one looking to the cockpit outside, one inside.  The inside one was recording the intercom audio.  Dashware software was used to put the speed and altitude tapes on the videos.  Dashware seems to only work with Win7 SP1 with no updates.  So i built a junk computer just to allow me to use Dashware.  So sad that GoPro bought Dashware and then stopped supporting it.  The original canard used on the Q2 and Q1 lost lift when wet.  The LS1 airfoil that is used in the Q200 doesn't really care if it's wet.  I get wet 3 times in this video!


Mike Q200 N3QP



Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Dave Dugas
 

Jerry....that makes two of us!    Dave D.




Sent from Samsung tablet



-------- Original message --------
From "Jerry Marstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 06/22/2018 3:48 PM (GMT-05:00)
To Q-LIST@...
Subject RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle


 

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J


-------- Original message --------
From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/22/18 3:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

Hi David,

 

Your comments are always appreciated. The moments are incorporated in the modeling, so yes they do contribute, however all other things being equal, I can understand why you see the incompatibility. I can summarize the issue as follows. Control surface deflection (downward) increases the camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the lift, but also increases forward pitching moment. Rotating the aircraft to a higher AOA increases the lift but GREATLY increases the forward pitching moment of the each airfoil. The magnitude of moment increase resulting from the AOA is more significant than the magnitude moment increase from higher camber, so the 4 degree AOA scenario accounts for overall lower forward pitching moment at the moment of flight. The numbers for my modeled wings are as follows (moments are relative to 25% chord).. Forward pitching sign-convention is negative.

 

For the case of 6.5 degree AOA takeoff with 17 degrees of down elevator, and 6 degrees of TE UP reflexor:

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.72       -0.165

Main Wing       0.46        -0.801

 

For the case of 4 degree AOA takeoff with 12 degrees of down elevator, and 2 degrees of TE DOWN reflexor

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.47       -0.113

Main Wing       0.45        -0.697

 

By normalizing each scenario’s Cm’s by a factor that makes total Cl=1.0 (for purposes of comparison), the 6.5 degree AOA scenario’s forward pitching moment  is 105% that of the 4.0 degree AOA scenario’s pitching moment

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Jay, something doesn’t add up. At constant gross weight and CG location, you cite liftoff at two different combinations of elevator and reflexor deflection that seem incompatible to me. In one, your reflexor is 2deg TE down and your elevator is 12deg down; in the other, your reflexor is 6deg TE up and your elevator is 17deg down. It seems to me that one or the other of these conditions will result in a rapid pitch change (rotation about the lateral axis) and will be unsustainable immediately after liftoff. Are you including airfoil pitching moments in your calculations? They are required for determining pitch equilibrium.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

David J. Gall
 

Jay,

Pitching moment does not increase with angle of attack. Please review NACA Report No. 824 or Theory of Wing Sections. You’ll find that the coefficient of moment is nearly constant across all non-stalled angles of attack.

The equilibrium equations can be found in any standard text on stability and control or flight mechanics, such as Perkins & Hage or Nelson.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks Jim,

 

No date set yet. Have one “T” to cross and one “I” to dot. The “T” is getting comfortable with the cockpit layout/sight picture while taxiing up to about 50 mph at my home field (then will take the plane to the longer Grand Junction runway).  The “I” is to go fly with a few folks (if they agree to do so), probably Bruce Crain and Lynn French. Once I get that done, I will come back home, get in and go.  Will keep you posted.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 5:35 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 


Jay,

I appreciate your offline comments and your continuing desire to cross every “T” and dot every “I”.

Just know this plane is more forgiving than you think, unless you get it to far out of line!

Relax, take a deep breath and things will be fine.

Have you set a date to turn that hangar queen into a real flying Q?

Jim
N46JP Q200
Weekly Q driver.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Jim Patillo
 

Jay,

I appreciate your offline comments and your continuing desire to cross every “T” and dot every “I”.

Just know this plane is more forgiving than you think, unless you get it to far out of line!

Relax, take a deep breath and things will be fine.

Have you set a date to turn that hangar queen into a real flying Q?

Jim
N46JP Q200
Weekly Q driver.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Jim Patillo
 

Jay,

I concur with Jerry and Paul. You are way over thinking this. If your plane was built right, you should be able to hold the stick in neutral position, run up to lift off speed, pull back slightly and be airborn? That’s how it works on mine. Real simple.

Disqualifer! I only know about Q tail dragger characteristics, not TriQ.

As you know, the reflexor was a band aid for an ill fitting canard or main wing and using this device is very powerful. Having had all these years taking measurements to get it right, I would have thought you would have designed that sort of stuff out of your plane. Btw,My cg is 41-47.5”. And I do not use evevator or reflexor for take off. Everything stays neutral.

I do reflex up after landing to keep pressure on the tail wheel.

Jim
N46JP Q200


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Sam Hoskins
 

Of course Jerry would say:

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J

He was an F-4 fighter pilot. Never forget that, I don't. 

Sam

Sent via wireless Gizmo.


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:48 PM Jerry Marstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J


-------- Original message --------
From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/22/18 3:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

Hi David,

 

Your comments are always appreciated. The moments are incorporated in the modeling, so yes they do contribute, however all other things being equal, I can understand why you see the incompatibility. I can summarize the issue as follows. Control surface deflection (downward) increases the camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the lift, but also increases forward pitching moment. Rotating the aircraft to a higher AOA increases the lift but GREATLY increases the forward pitching moment of the each airfoil. The magnitude of moment increase resulting from the AOA is more significant than the magnitude moment increase from higher camber, so the 4 degree AOA scenario accounts for overall lower forward pitching moment at the moment of flight. The numbers for my modeled wings are as follows (moments are relative to 25% chord).. Forward pitching sign-convention is negative.

 

For the case of 6.5 degree AOA takeoff with 17 degrees of down elevator, and 6 degrees of TE UP reflexor:

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.72       -0.165

Main Wing       0.46        -0.801

 

For the case of 4 degree AOA takeoff with 12 degrees of down elevator, and 2 degrees of TE DOWN reflexor

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.47       -0.113

Main Wing       0.45        -0.697

 

By normalizing each scenario’s Cm’s by a factor that makes total Cl=1.0 (for purposes of comparison), the 6.5 degree AOA scenario’s forward pitching moment  is 105% that of the 4.0 degree AOA scenario’s pitching moment

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Jay, something doesn’t add up. At constant gross weight and CG location, you cite liftoff at two different combinations of elevator and reflexor deflection that seem incompatible to me. In one, your reflexor is 2deg TE down and your elevator is 12deg down; in the other, your reflexor is 6deg TE up and your elevator is 17deg down. It seems to me that one or the other of these conditions will result in a rapid pitch change (rotation about the lateral axis) and will be unsustainable immediately after liftoff. Are you including airfoil pitching moments in your calculations? They are required for determining pitch equilibrium.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Jay Scheevel
 

Wise elders!

 

 

From: Q-LIST@... Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 2:21 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Ah, another great idea

 

-------- Original message --------

From: "Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>

Date: 6/22/18 4:06 PM (GMT-05:00)

Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Thanks Jerry, I thought it was just me!  Push up the power and manipulate the stick as necessary!

 

Paul

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 14:48 Jerry Marstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J

 

-------- Original message --------

From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>

Date: 6/22/18 3:34 PM (GMT-05:00)

Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Hi David,

 

Your comments are always appreciated. The moments are incorporated in the modeling, so yes they do contribute, however all other things being equal, I can understand why you see the incompatibility. I can summarize the issue as follows. Control surface deflection (downward) increases the camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the lift, but also increases forward pitching moment. Rotating the aircraft to a higher AOA increases the lift but GREATLY increases the forward pitching moment of the each airfoil. The magnitude of moment increase resulting from the AOA is more significant than the magnitude moment increase from higher camber, so the 4 degree AOA scenario accounts for overall lower forward pitching moment at the moment of flight. The numbers for my modeled wings are as follows (moments are relative to 25% chord).. Forward pitching sign-convention is negative.

 

For the case of 6.5 degree AOA takeoff with 17 degrees of down elevator, and 6 degrees of TE UP reflexor:

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.72       -0.165

Main Wing       0.46        -0.801

 

For the case of 4 degree AOA takeoff with 12 degrees of down elevator, and 2 degrees of TE DOWN reflexor

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.47       -0.113

Main Wing       0.45        -0.697

 

By normalizing each scenario’s Cm’s by a factor that makes total Cl=1.0 (for purposes of comparison), the 6.5 degree AOA scenario’s forward pitching moment  is 105% that of the 4.0 degree AOA scenario’s pitching moment

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Jay, something doesn’t add up. At constant gross weight and CG location, you cite liftoff at two different combinations of elevator and reflexor deflection that seem incompatible to me. In one, your reflexor is 2deg TE down and your elevator is 12deg down; in the other, your reflexor is 6deg TE up and your elevator is 17deg down. It seems to me that one or the other of these conditions will result in a rapid pitch change (rotation about the lateral axis) and will be unsustainable immediately after liftoff. Are you including airfoil pitching moments in your calculations? They are required for determining pitch equilibrium.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Ah, another great idea

-------- Original message --------
From: "Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/22/18 4:06 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

Thanks Jerry, I thought it was just me!  Push up the power and manipulate the stick as necessary!

Paul

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 14:48 Jerry Marstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J


-------- Original message --------
From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/22/18 3:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

Hi David,

 

Your comments are always appreciated. The moments are incorporated in the modeling, so yes they do contribute, however all other things being equal, I can understand why you see the incompatibility. I can summarize the issue as follows. Control surface deflection (downward) increases the camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the lift, but also increases forward pitching moment. Rotating the aircraft to a higher AOA increases the lift but GREATLY increases the forward pitching moment of the each airfoil. The magnitude of moment increase resulting from the AOA is more significant than the magnitude moment increase from higher camber, so the 4 degree AOA scenario accounts for overall lower forward pitching moment at the moment of flight. The numbers for my modeled wings are as follows (moments are relative to 25% chord).. Forward pitching sign-convention is negative.

 

For the case of 6.5 degree AOA takeoff with 17 degrees of down elevator, and 6 degrees of TE UP reflexor:

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.72       -0.165

Main Wing       0.46        -0.801

 

For the case of 4 degree AOA takeoff with 12 degrees of down elevator, and 2 degrees of TE DOWN reflexor

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.47       -0.113

Main Wing       0.45        -0.697

 

By normalizing each scenario’s Cm’s by a factor that makes total Cl=1.0 (for purposes of comparison), the 6.5 degree AOA scenario’s forward pitching moment  is 105% that of the 4.0 degree AOA scenario’s pitching moment

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Jay, something doesn’t add up. At constant gross weight and CG location, you cite liftoff at two different combinations of elevator and reflexor deflection that seem incompatible to me. In one, your reflexor is 2deg TE down and your elevator is 12deg down; in the other, your reflexor is 6deg TE up and your elevator is 17deg down. It seems to me that one or the other of these conditions will result in a rapid pitch change (rotation about the lateral axis) and will be unsustainable immediately after liftoff. Are you including airfoil pitching moments in your calculations? They are required for determining pitch equilibrium.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Paul Fisher
 

Thanks Jerry, I thought it was just me!  Push up the power and manipulate the stick as necessary!

Paul


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 14:48 Jerry Marstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J


-------- Original message --------
From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/22/18 3:34 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

Hi David,

 

Your comments are always appreciated. The moments are incorporated in the modeling, so yes they do contribute, however all other things being equal, I can understand why you see the incompatibility. I can summarize the issue as follows. Control surface deflection (downward) increases the camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the lift, but also increases forward pitching moment. Rotating the aircraft to a higher AOA increases the lift but GREATLY increases the forward pitching moment of the each airfoil. The magnitude of moment increase resulting from the AOA is more significant than the magnitude moment increase from higher camber, so the 4 degree AOA scenario accounts for overall lower forward pitching moment at the moment of flight. The numbers for my modeled wings are as follows (moments are relative to 25% chord).. Forward pitching sign-convention is negative.

 

For the case of 6.5 degree AOA takeoff with 17 degrees of down elevator, and 6 degrees of TE UP reflexor:

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.72       -0.165

Main Wing       0.46        -0.801

 

For the case of 4 degree AOA takeoff with 12 degrees of down elevator, and 2 degrees of TE DOWN reflexor

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.47       -0.113

Main Wing       0.45        -0.697

 

By normalizing each scenario’s Cm’s by a factor that makes total Cl=1.0 (for purposes of comparison), the 6.5 degree AOA scenario’s forward pitching moment  is 105% that of the 4.0 degree AOA scenario’s pitching moment

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Jay, something doesn’t add up. At constant gross weight and CG location, you cite liftoff at two different combinations of elevator and reflexor deflection that seem incompatible to me. In one, your reflexor is 2deg TE down and your elevator is 12deg down; in the other, your reflexor is 6deg TE up and your elevator is 17deg down. It seems to me that one or the other of these conditions will result in a rapid pitch change (rotation about the lateral axis) and will be unsustainable immediately after liftoff. Are you including airfoil pitching moments in your calculations? They are required for determining pitch equilibrium.


Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Hadn't thought of that last statement.

-------- Original message --------
From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 6/22/18 4:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

Your ability to boil things down to their essence is a asset, Jerry.  Keep ‘er pointed forward.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 1:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

I bet I am the only guy out their that doesn't understand a word of this.. I just get in, push up the power and go.   So far, so good. J

 

-------- Original message --------

From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>

Date: 6/22/18 3:34 PM (GMT-05:00)

Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Hi David,

 

Your comments are always appreciated. The moments are incorporated in the modeling, so yes they do contribute, however all other things being equal, I can understand why you see the incompatibility. I can summarize the issue as follows. Control surface deflection (downward) increases the camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the lift, but also increases forward pitching moment. Rotating the aircraft to a higher AOA increases the lift but GREATLY increases the forward pitching moment of the each airfoil. The magnitude of moment increase resulting from the AOA is more significant than the magnitude moment increase from higher camber, so the 4 degree AOA scenario accounts for overall lower forward pitching moment at the moment of flight. The numbers for my modeled wings are as follows (moments are relative to 25% chord).. Forward pitching sign-convention is negative.

 

For the case of 6.5 degree AOA takeoff with 17 degrees of down elevator, and 6 degrees of TE UP reflexor:

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.72       -0.165

Main Wing       0.46        -0.801

 

For the case of 4 degree AOA takeoff with 12 degrees of down elevator, and 2 degrees of TE DOWN reflexor

                              Cl             Cm

Canard              1.47       -0.113

Main Wing       0.45        -0.697

 

By normalizing each scenario’s Cm’s by a factor that makes total Cl=1.0 (for purposes of comparison), the 6.5 degree AOA scenario’s forward pitching moment  is 105% that of the 4.0 degree AOA scenario’s pitching moment

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Reflexor, Elevator and takeoff/landing angle

 

 

Jay, something doesn’t add up. At constant gross weight and CG location, you cite liftoff at two different combinations of elevator and reflexor deflection that seem incompatible to me. In one, your reflexor is 2deg TE down and your elevator is 12deg down; in the other, your reflexor is 6deg TE up and your elevator is 17deg down. It seems to me that one or the other of these conditions will result in a rapid pitch change (rotation about the lateral axis) and will be unsustainable immediately after liftoff. Are you including airfoil pitching moments in your calculations? They are required for determining pitch equilibrium.

9081 - 9100 of 55773