Date   

Re: Stock Q2 Wheel Bearings

Brad Baerg
 

The 6202 2rs – 5/8  is the bearing you will need

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: December 24, 2019 8:13 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Stock Q2 Wheel Bearings

 

Hey everyone,

I found this old post about wheel bearings but was unable to find anything online matching a "GENBEARCO #6202-05" part number. Does anyone know of a current source for the taildragger main gear bearings (using Chen Sheng wheels+tires)? Can I just measure one and replace it using size alone?
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Stock Q2 Wheel Bearings

Michael Dunning
 

Hey everyone,

I found this old post about wheel bearings but was unable to find anything online matching a "GENBEARCO #6202-05" part number. Does anyone know of a current source for the taildragger main gear bearings (using Chen Sheng wheels+tires)? Can I just measure one and replace it using size alone?
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

David J. Gall
 

I’m in Marin County but my hangar is in Petaluma. In the fog. 😝


On Dec 24, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Morning, David,

I’m glad you are enjoying your new career. It was my childhood dream as well. I enjoyed and met so many wonderful people during my years at United Airlines. Memories I will never forget. Where do you live now. I moved to Auburn. 


Jim
N46JP - Q200


Re: ADSB

Bruce Crain
 

Hi Jim,  
I used the same Uavionics unit as you.  After adjusting the sensitivity in the unit as per company rep is works great and passed the test last week!  The test is elective but it assures you that everything is ready to meet the 2020 mandate.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Bruce Crain


On Dec 23, 2019, at 8:26 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  


 




Re: ADSB

Martin Skiby
 

Exactly what I would do as well Jim!

Martin

 


On Dec 24, 2019, at 9:22 AM, Corbin via Groups.Io <c_geiser@...> wrote:

Thanks Jim!!

Corbin

On Dec 24, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi Corbin,

I used the Uavonics EXT version with internal electronic plastic dipole antenna purchased from Spruce. This eliminates the need for a ground plane. No antennas outside the airframe. Echo and FX are mounted on a small aluminum shelf I made and Velcro’d to passenger side wall, baggage area, above cut line, just under the main wing. The antenna is mounted vertically low on the rear bulkhead. RG400 cable between Echo/FX is about 10”L. 

Hope this helps. Install is very simple. I posted pictures a month or so ago  

Jim 
N46JP - Q200

 


Re: ADSB

Jim Patillo
 

Hey Bruce, Merry Christmas to you and your family. 

Good to hear you got er done. You can also monitor your signal output on the Echo “Config/Monitor” downloadable app. 

Jim
N46JP Q200




Sent from Outer Space

On Dec 24, 2019, at 9:55 AM, Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:

 Sorry.  I installed the Uavionics in my RV 6 so finding a ground plane was not a problem.
B


On Dec 24, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Joanne Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:

Hi Jim,  
I used the same Uavionics unit as you.  After adjusting the sensitivity in the unit as per company rep is works great and passed the test last week!  The test is elective but it assures you that everything is ready to meet the 2020 mandate.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Bruce Crain


On Dec 23, 2019, at 8:26 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  


 




Re: ADSB

Jay Scheevel
 

The only problem you have Bruce, is trying to decide which plane to leave on the ground!  Sorry, could not resist. Merry Christmas to you and the entire group!

 

Cheers,
Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 10:54 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] ADSB

 

Sorry.  I installed the Uavionics in my RV 6 so finding a ground plane was not a problem.

B



On Dec 24, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Joanne Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:

Hi Jim,  

I used the same Uavionics unit as you.  After adjusting the sensitivity in the unit as per company rep is works great and passed the test last week!  The test is elective but it assures you that everything is ready to meet the 2020 mandate.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!

Bruce Crain



On Dec 23, 2019, at 8:26 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  

 

 


Re: ADSB

Bruce Crain
 

Sorry.  I installed the Uavionics in my RV 6 so finding a ground plane was not a problem.
B


On Dec 24, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Joanne Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:

Hi Jim,  
I used the same Uavionics unit as you.  After adjusting the sensitivity in the unit as per company rep is works great and passed the test last week!  The test is elective but it assures you that everything is ready to meet the 2020 mandate.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Bruce Crain


On Dec 23, 2019, at 8:26 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  


 




Re: ADSB

Corbin <c_geiser@...>
 

Thanks Jim!!

Corbin

On Dec 24, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi Corbin,

I used the Uavonics EXT version with internal electronic plastic dipole antenna purchased from Spruce. This eliminates the need for a ground plane. No antennas outside the airframe. Echo and FX are mounted on a small aluminum shelf I made and Velcro’d to passenger side wall, baggage area, above cut line, just under the main wing. The antenna is mounted vertically low on the rear bulkhead. RG400 cable between Echo/FX is about 10”L. 

Hope this helps. Install is very simple. I posted pictures a month or so ago  

Jim 
N46JP - Q200

 


Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

Jim Patillo
 

Morning, David,

I’m glad you are enjoying your new career. It was my childhood dream as well. I enjoyed and met so many wonderful people during my years at United Airlines. Memories I will never forget. Where do you live now. I moved to Auburn. 


Jim
N46JP - Q200


Re: ADSB

Jim Patillo
 

Hi Corbin,

I used the Uavonics EXT version with internal electronic plastic dipole antenna purchased from Spruce. This eliminates the need for a ground plane. No antennas outside the airframe. Echo and FX are mounted on a small aluminum shelf I made and Velcro’d to passenger side wall, baggage area, above cut line, just under the main wing. The antenna is mounted vertically low on the rear bulkhead. RG400 cable between Echo/FX is about 10”L. 

Hope this helps. Install is very simple. I posted pictures a month or so ago  

Jim 
N46JP - Q200

 


Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

David J. Gall
 

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for the compliment. I retired from that job three years ago. I’ve been chasing my boyhood dream of being an airline pilot by flying for SkyWest Airlines ever since, and I’m still pursuing propeller design and other aeronautical oddities. The twins are five now so life is a bit overwhelming….

 

Merry Christmas to you and to everyone on the Q-List!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jim Patillo
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 8:46 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

 

Hey David, nice to see you posting again. You too have made significant contributions to the safer handling of our our planes with your posts regarding wheel alignment. Thanks again. 

Are you working “NorCal” SAC Area by any chance?

Jim 
N46JP Q-200


Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

Jim Patillo
 

Hey David, nice to see you posting again. You too have made significant contributions to the safer handling of our our planes with your posts regarding wheel alignment. Thanks again. 

Are you working “NorCal” SAC Area by any chance?

Jim 
N46JP Q-200


Re: ADSB

Corbin <c_geiser@...>
 

Jim,

I’m going this route as well but have not installed yet.  Did you install the ext version or the “all internal” model with the little metal antenna?  I would love to see a pic of your install.  Where did you mount everything?

Thanks,

Corbin

On Dec 23, 2019, at 9:26 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  


 


Re: ADSB

Jim Patillo
 

Sorry meant to say Seattle Avionics Fly Q EFB but I kinda like “Q Fly”  as well😊
Jim 
N46JP - Q200


Re: ADSB

Rodney Herzig
 

Good to know Jim, I’ve been looking at picking up one of those unit. Thanks for the update.

Rod Herzig 
CozyIII N399BR


On Dec 23, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  


 


ADSB

Jim Patillo
 

Hi all,

I finally installed ADSB last week. I chose Uavonics Echo UAT/ SkyFX. OUT/IN. Flew and Passed the FED test first time with no squawks. Very  easy install with only two wires (power&ground). Hooked up to iPad/iPhone using Seattle Avionics “Q Fly” software for flight planning, traffic and weather. 

I used the  “switched” battery master solenoid with 3 amp in line  fuse  for “power” and battery negative for “ground”. I would recommend this unit.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200



  


 


Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi David,

I do not have springs of any kind attached to my elevator control system. Linkage consists of two pushrods attached to a common bolt on the stick. The other ends are attached to the right or left elevator horns. I do have a mass balance arm for each elevator attached just inside the fuselage walls on the left and right sides. That is the entire setup.

Cheers,
Jay

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


"David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote:

Jay,

 

I understand that you “…do not have the elevator trim system installed.” However, please clarify: Do you or do you not have any springs “attached” to your elevator control system?

 

Thank you,

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 6:50 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

 

Hi Richard,

 

My reflexor has been totally adequate for all loading so far. By adjusing power and reflexor, I can stabilize anywhere from 140 mph IAS level cruise to 85 mph standard final descent (3 degrees), all with neutral stick force (hands off).

 

I have found that I can increase max level cruise by about 5 mph by reducing forward forward reflexor and pushing a little forward stick instead (reflexing elevator slightly). This means that there is room for cruise speed optimization if I were to install elevator trim. That will be a future project after I have built my wheel pants.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID



Richard Thomson <richard@...> wrote:

Yay Jay, I think we already discussed, I have been beating my 2 brain
cells together over the situation that I only have the elevator helper
spring fitted (that was in when I bought FN) and trying to work out if I
needed the full elevator trim fitted. So your stick rests around neutral
in cruise without the trim ?

Thanks for the tips you sent earlier on testing set up for the reflex, I
have copied those off to add to my notes.

Best present yet this year, merry Christmas. :-)

Rich.


On 22/12/2019 19:12, Jay Scheevel wrote:
> I do not have the elevator trim system installed. I have been using my aileron reflexor for pitch trim since I first flew my plane a year ago. The elevator seems fully stabilized without the trim system.  I think that the sparrow strainers have a significant damping effect.
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 11:57 AM
> To: main@q-list.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>
> Jay, I think to evaluate this conservatively you’ll have to disconnect the pitch trim springs since those help to stabilize the system in some ways.
>
> Matthew Curcio
> 419-290-3773
>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:44, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the more complete explanation. I have a manual "stick" type of control on my aileron reflexor. It fits into my left hand and feels and manipulates like a second stick (absent roll control obviously).  I will have to try to see if I can fly the airplane using that reflexor control for pitch and the actual stick for roll. The sparrow strainers hold the elevator pretty much in trail for most AOA's (in the event that elevator continuity was absent), so I think it may be possible to fly the airplane with reflexor and aileron input only. I will try this out at a safe altitude and let you know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jay
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 10:46 AM
>> To: main@q-list.groups.io
>> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>>
>> Yes but a lot more than that. This may be common knowledge for you but I’ll explain in some detail since I think most people aren’t fully aware. Taking a step back, part 23 and part 25 both say that you cannot have any single points of failure in flight control systems that are catastrophic (airplane is a total loss and more than one fatality). Look at a 172. If a pushrod or cables breaks going to the elevator (one or both panels), you can still fly with the trim tab, if you lose aileron authority (both panels) you can take advantage of adverse yaw to maintain roll authority - the quickie can’t do either of those things. A lot of pilots are aware of this but see it as a neat trick - they don’t realize it’s actually a requirement. The FARs also state stick load limits, with time functions for failure cases (This is why most twins end up with rudder trim and roll trim to deal with control loads after an engine failure) Additionally, if a 172 loses signal to one of its elevators the pilot would have ~50% elevator authority and the associated rolling moment would easily be reacted by the ailerons.
>>
>> If a quickie loses signal to one elevator (hand wavey assessment here) you’re not going to have enough roll authority to react the rolling moments for continued safe flight and landing, assuming one elevator is faired and the other is being used to control pitch attitude.  Its an issue of moment arms, the elevator’s arm about the longitudinal axis is so close to the CG that they require huge authority to drive a pitching moment, hence the full span and associated high stick loads that drive the  requirement for sparrow strainer (it’s a band aid) - but their arm from the cg in the lateral axis is bigger than the ailerons arm. Hence, I argue that while the q2 has mostly separate load paths going to each elevator if either one fails it’s still not likely going to be survivable. I’d be thrilled if someone can prove me wrong or point to a case where that happened and it wasn’t catastrophic. There is nothing you can do to fix it, it’s just a flaw inherent with the design. Elevators should hav a big arm from the cg in the longitudinal axis and short about the lateral axis if you want to have a stable airplane, with benign failure modes.
>>
>> That said, clearly if the bearing that supports the stick falls off your in a bad spot (BTW It should have a >1” long taped gusset in the x-y plane to react the loads in x that react the pilots pitch inputs, fiberglass tapes are terrible in reacting out of plane moment), if the bolt that connects the stick to elevator pushrods fails that’s single point and based on my assessment above, all the other linkage going to each surface is single point catastrophic failure.
>>
>> If this were a part 25 airplane that bolt connecting the pushrods to the stick would be hollow with a second bolt running through it, the pushrods would have a second pushrod inside, as well as the torque tubes and horns a would all have parallel, independent load paths. Part 23 airplanes don’t usually end up requiring this level of complexity and the quickie just can’t be certified due to this reason and other. Im stating all of this as fact but it’s mostly hand wavey assessment (based on my experience from a couple years of designing and evaluating flight controls to part 25 requirements) so feel free to poke holes!
>>
>> Matthew Curcio
>> 419-290-3773
>>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 08:55, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>> When you state the that the elevator control linkage has single points of failure, are you referring to the fact that there are independent (left-right) control arms with separate push rods returning to a single point on the stick?
>>>
>>> Cheer,
>>> Jay N8WQ
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:32 PM
>>> To: main@q-list.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>>>
>>> I would be extraordinarily careful with that setup and my professional recommendation would be don’t fly that. The problem is that unless you have fully evaluated the trim loads incurred during the trim runaway throughout the entire flight envelope, that failure will likely degrade handling qualities such that it would be a catastrophic single point of failure. It’d be nice to have but I wouldnt accept the risk, if not for me for a future owner.
>>>
>>> I was just talking about this with another engineer at work (the pitch control on the quickies is pretty terrifying). Where we ended up was that the elevator control linkage on the quickie has single points of failure that are catastrophic (obviously). They would carry a PF of  1e-6 (generic probability of failure / flight hour for any mechanical system) which is kind of stomachable but would never be allowed in a part 23 aircraft. If it’s mechanically controlled, a trimable sparrow strainer introduces another 1e-6 catastrophic single point of failure and in that regard it degrades safety. It doesn’t get rid of a single point of failure it just adds one. If you put an electric sparrow strainer on the PF is going to be appreciably worse unless you had an extremely slow actuator that could reduce the time of occurence. If there is anything more than a simple toggle switch (software) you would need an involved ver-Val test program.
>>>
>>> If a reputable aerospace company were to do this we would consider it a land as soon as practical EP, We’d determine the stick loads allowed for continued safe flight and landing, do extensive sims to test the pilots time of response to the failure in the worst phase of flight, add some margin to that time and then ensure that the trim Is slow enough to prevent those loads from developing before the pilot responds. This is not ever the preferred approach of mitigating a catastrophic failure and there’s a few hundred families who buried loved ones last year, due to a very similar scenario, that would likely agree.
>>>
>>> For reference Proteus has a trim-able sparrow strainer, everybody that touches the airplane is petrified of it (for good reason) and it’s the subject of a lot of conversation. Just bringing that up to say it’s a fairly well understood dilemma around here.
>>>
>>> Matthew Curcio
>>> 419-290-3773
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2019, at 11:46, charlie <ffmd@...> wrote:
>>>> Way back in the mid '80s when I was building my Q1 with the first customer LS1 airfoil. I built the sparrow Strainers on hinges and drove then with model servos.
>>>> Intention was for this to be the trim system.
>>>> Being we have not flown this plane yet I have no clue how well this would work. Seems right thought.
>>>> CharlieN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

David J. Gall
 

Jay,

 

I understand that you “…do not have the elevator trim system installed.” However, please clarify: Do you or do you not have any springs “attached” to your elevator control system?

 

Thank you,

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 6:50 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

 

Hi Richard,

 

My reflexor has been totally adequate for all loading so far. By adjusing power and reflexor, I can stabilize anywhere from 140 mph IAS level cruise to 85 mph standard final descent (3 degrees), all with neutral stick force (hands off).

 

I have found that I can increase max level cruise by about 5 mph by reducing forward forward reflexor and pushing a little forward stick instead (reflexing elevator slightly). This means that there is room for cruise speed optimization if I were to install elevator trim. That will be a future project after I have built my wheel pants.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID



Richard Thomson <richard@...> wrote:

Yay Jay, I think we already discussed, I have been beating my 2 brain
cells together over the situation that I only have the elevator helper
spring fitted (that was in when I bought FN) and trying to work out if I
needed the full elevator trim fitted. So your stick rests around neutral
in cruise without the trim ?

Thanks for the tips you sent earlier on testing set up for the reflex, I
have copied those off to add to my notes.

Best present yet this year, merry Christmas. :-)

Rich.


On 22/12/2019 19:12, Jay Scheevel wrote:
> I do not have the elevator trim system installed. I have been using my aileron reflexor for pitch trim since I first flew my plane a year ago. The elevator seems fully stabilized without the trim system.  I think that the sparrow strainers have a significant damping effect.
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 11:57 AM
> To: main@q-list.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>
> Jay, I think to evaluate this conservatively you’ll have to disconnect the pitch trim springs since those help to stabilize the system in some ways.
>
> Matthew Curcio
> 419-290-3773
>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:44, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the more complete explanation. I have a manual "stick" type of control on my aileron reflexor. It fits into my left hand and feels and manipulates like a second stick (absent roll control obviously).  I will have to try to see if I can fly the airplane using that reflexor control for pitch and the actual stick for roll. The sparrow strainers hold the elevator pretty much in trail for most AOA's (in the event that elevator continuity was absent), so I think it may be possible to fly the airplane with reflexor and aileron input only. I will try this out at a safe altitude and let you know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jay
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 10:46 AM
>> To: main@q-list.groups.io
>> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>>
>> Yes but a lot more than that. This may be common knowledge for you but I’ll explain in some detail since I think most people aren’t fully aware. Taking a step back, part 23 and part 25 both say that you cannot have any single points of failure in flight control systems that are catastrophic (airplane is a total loss and more than one fatality). Look at a 172. If a pushrod or cables breaks going to the elevator (one or both panels), you can still fly with the trim tab, if you lose aileron authority (both panels) you can take advantage of adverse yaw to maintain roll authority - the quickie can’t do either of those things. A lot of pilots are aware of this but see it as a neat trick - they don’t realize it’s actually a requirement. The FARs also state stick load limits, with time functions for failure cases (This is why most twins end up with rudder trim and roll trim to deal with control loads after an engine failure) Additionally, if a 172 loses signal to one of its elevators the pilot would have ~50% elevator authority and the associated rolling moment would easily be reacted by the ailerons.
>>
>> If a quickie loses signal to one elevator (hand wavey assessment here) you’re not going to have enough roll authority to react the rolling moments for continued safe flight and landing, assuming one elevator is faired and the other is being used to control pitch attitude.  Its an issue of moment arms, the elevator’s arm about the longitudinal axis is so close to the CG that they require huge authority to drive a pitching moment, hence the full span and associated high stick loads that drive the  requirement for sparrow strainer (it’s a band aid) - but their arm from the cg in the lateral axis is bigger than the ailerons arm. Hence, I argue that while the q2 has mostly separate load paths going to each elevator if either one fails it’s still not likely going to be survivable. I’d be thrilled if someone can prove me wrong or point to a case where that happened and it wasn’t catastrophic. There is nothing you can do to fix it, it’s just a flaw inherent with the design. Elevators should hav a big arm from the cg in the longitudinal axis and short about the lateral axis if you want to have a stable airplane, with benign failure modes.
>>
>> That said, clearly if the bearing that supports the stick falls off your in a bad spot (BTW It should have a >1” long taped gusset in the x-y plane to react the loads in x that react the pilots pitch inputs, fiberglass tapes are terrible in reacting out of plane moment), if the bolt that connects the stick to elevator pushrods fails that’s single point and based on my assessment above, all the other linkage going to each surface is single point catastrophic failure.
>>
>> If this were a part 25 airplane that bolt connecting the pushrods to the stick would be hollow with a second bolt running through it, the pushrods would have a second pushrod inside, as well as the torque tubes and horns a would all have parallel, independent load paths. Part 23 airplanes don’t usually end up requiring this level of complexity and the quickie just can’t be certified due to this reason and other. Im stating all of this as fact but it’s mostly hand wavey assessment (based on my experience from a couple years of designing and evaluating flight controls to part 25 requirements) so feel free to poke holes!
>>
>> Matthew Curcio
>> 419-290-3773
>>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 08:55, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>> When you state the that the elevator control linkage has single points of failure, are you referring to the fact that there are independent (left-right) control arms with separate push rods returning to a single point on the stick?
>>>
>>> Cheer,
>>> Jay N8WQ
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:32 PM
>>> To: main@q-list.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>>>
>>> I would be extraordinarily careful with that setup and my professional recommendation would be don’t fly that. The problem is that unless you have fully evaluated the trim loads incurred during the trim runaway throughout the entire flight envelope, that failure will likely degrade handling qualities such that it would be a catastrophic single point of failure. It’d be nice to have but I wouldnt accept the risk, if not for me for a future owner.
>>>
>>> I was just talking about this with another engineer at work (the pitch control on the quickies is pretty terrifying). Where we ended up was that the elevator control linkage on the quickie has single points of failure that are catastrophic (obviously). They would carry a PF of  1e-6 (generic probability of failure / flight hour for any mechanical system) which is kind of stomachable but would never be allowed in a part 23 aircraft. If it’s mechanically controlled, a trimable sparrow strainer introduces another 1e-6 catastrophic single point of failure and in that regard it degrades safety. It doesn’t get rid of a single point of failure it just adds one. If you put an electric sparrow strainer on the PF is going to be appreciably worse unless you had an extremely slow actuator that could reduce the time of occurence. If there is anything more than a simple toggle switch (software) you would need an involved ver-Val test program.
>>>
>>> If a reputable aerospace company were to do this we would consider it a land as soon as practical EP, We’d determine the stick loads allowed for continued safe flight and landing, do extensive sims to test the pilots time of response to the failure in the worst phase of flight, add some margin to that time and then ensure that the trim Is slow enough to prevent those loads from developing before the pilot responds. This is not ever the preferred approach of mitigating a catastrophic failure and there’s a few hundred families who buried loved ones last year, due to a very similar scenario, that would likely agree.
>>>
>>> For reference Proteus has a trim-able sparrow strainer, everybody that touches the airplane is petrified of it (for good reason) and it’s the subject of a lot of conversation. Just bringing that up to say it’s a fairly well understood dilemma around here.
>>>
>>> Matthew Curcio
>>> 419-290-3773
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2019, at 11:46, charlie <ffmd@...> wrote:
>>>> Way back in the mid '80s when I was building my Q1 with the first customer LS1 airfoil. I built the sparrow Strainers on hinges and drove then with model servos.
>>>> Intention was for this to be the trim system.
>>>> Being we have not flown this plane yet I have no clue how well this would work. Seems right thought.
>>>> CharlieN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Re: Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Richard,

My reflexor has been totally adequate for all loading so far. By adjusing power and reflexor, I can stabilize anywhere from 140 mph IAS level cruise to 85 mph standard final descent (3 degrees), all with neutral stick force (hands off).

I have found that I can increase max level cruise by about 5 mph by reducing forward forward reflexor and pushing a little forward stick instead (reflexing elevator slightly). This means that there is room for cruise speed optimization if I were to install elevator trim. That will be a future project after I have built my wheel pants.

Cheers,
Jay

Cheers,
Jay

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Richard Thomson <richard@...> wrote:

Yay Jay, I think we already discussed, I have been beating my 2 brain
cells together over the situation that I only have the elevator helper
spring fitted (that was in when I bought FN) and trying to work out if I
needed the full elevator trim fitted. So your stick rests around neutral
in cruise without the trim ?

Thanks for the tips you sent earlier on testing set up for the reflex, I
have copied those off to add to my notes.

Best present yet this year, merry Christmas. :-)

Rich.


On 22/12/2019 19:12, Jay Scheevel wrote:
> I do not have the elevator trim system installed. I have been using my aileron reflexor for pitch trim since I first flew my plane a year ago. The elevator seems fully stabilized without the trim system.  I think that the sparrow strainers have a significant damping effect.
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 11:57 AM
> To: main@q-list.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>
> Jay, I think to evaluate this conservatively you’ll have to disconnect the pitch trim springs since those help to stabilize the system in some ways.
>
> Matthew Curcio
> 419-290-3773
>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:44, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the more complete explanation. I have a manual "stick" type of control on my aileron reflexor. It fits into my left hand and feels and manipulates like a second stick (absent roll control obviously).  I will have to try to see if I can fly the airplane using that reflexor control for pitch and the actual stick for roll. The sparrow strainers hold the elevator pretty much in trail for most AOA's (in the event that elevator continuity was absent), so I think it may be possible to fly the airplane with reflexor and aileron input only. I will try this out at a safe altitude and let you know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jay
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
>> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 10:46 AM
>> To: main@q-list.groups.io
>> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>>
>> Yes but a lot more than that. This may be common knowledge for you but I’ll explain in some detail since I think most people aren’t fully aware. Taking a step back, part 23 and part 25 both say that you cannot have any single points of failure in flight control systems that are catastrophic (airplane is a total loss and more than one fatality). Look at a 172. If a pushrod or cables breaks going to the elevator (one or both panels), you can still fly with the trim tab, if you lose aileron authority (both panels) you can take advantage of adverse yaw to maintain roll authority - the quickie can’t do either of those things. A lot of pilots are aware of this but see it as a neat trick - they don’t realize it’s actually a requirement. The FARs also state stick load limits, with time functions for failure cases (This is why most twins end up with rudder trim and roll trim to deal with control loads after an engine failure) Additionally, if a 172 loses signal to one of its elevators the pilot would have ~50% elevator authority and the associated rolling moment would easily be reacted by the ailerons.
>>
>> If a quickie loses signal to one elevator (hand wavey assessment here) you’re not going to have enough roll authority to react the rolling moments for continued safe flight and landing, assuming one elevator is faired and the other is being used to control pitch attitude.  Its an issue of moment arms, the elevator’s arm about the longitudinal axis is so close to the CG that they require huge authority to drive a pitching moment, hence the full span and associated high stick loads that drive the  requirement for sparrow strainer (it’s a band aid) - but their arm from the cg in the lateral axis is bigger than the ailerons arm. Hence, I argue that while the q2 has mostly separate load paths going to each elevator if either one fails it’s still not likely going to be survivable. I’d be thrilled if someone can prove me wrong or point to a case where that happened and it wasn’t catastrophic. There is nothing you can do to fix it, it’s just a flaw inherent with the design. Elevators should hav a big arm from the cg in the longitudinal axis and short about the lateral axis if you want to have a stable airplane, with benign failure modes.
>>
>> That said, clearly if the bearing that supports the stick falls off your in a bad spot (BTW It should have a >1” long taped gusset in the x-y plane to react the loads in x that react the pilots pitch inputs, fiberglass tapes are terrible in reacting out of plane moment), if the bolt that connects the stick to elevator pushrods fails that’s single point and based on my assessment above, all the other linkage going to each surface is single point catastrophic failure.
>>
>> If this were a part 25 airplane that bolt connecting the pushrods to the stick would be hollow with a second bolt running through it, the pushrods would have a second pushrod inside, as well as the torque tubes and horns a would all have parallel, independent load paths. Part 23 airplanes don’t usually end up requiring this level of complexity and the quickie just can’t be certified due to this reason and other. Im stating all of this as fact but it’s mostly hand wavey assessment (based on my experience from a couple years of designing and evaluating flight controls to part 25 requirements) so feel free to poke holes!
>>
>> Matthew Curcio
>> 419-290-3773
>>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 08:55, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>> When you state the that the elevator control linkage has single points of failure, are you referring to the fact that there are independent (left-right) control arms with separate push rods returning to a single point on the stick?
>>>
>>> Cheer,
>>> Jay N8WQ
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Matthew Curcio
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:32 PM
>>> To: main@q-list.groups.io
>>> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Bruce's tuft study on sparrow strainers
>>>
>>> I would be extraordinarily careful with that setup and my professional recommendation would be don’t fly that. The problem is that unless you have fully evaluated the trim loads incurred during the trim runaway throughout the entire flight envelope, that failure will likely degrade handling qualities such that it would be a catastrophic single point of failure. It’d be nice to have but I wouldnt accept the risk, if not for me for a future owner.
>>>
>>> I was just talking about this with another engineer at work (the pitch control on the quickies is pretty terrifying). Where we ended up was that the elevator control linkage on the quickie has single points of failure that are catastrophic (obviously). They would carry a PF of  1e-6 (generic probability of failure / flight hour for any mechanical system) which is kind of stomachable but would never be allowed in a part 23 aircraft. If it’s mechanically controlled, a trimable sparrow strainer introduces another 1e-6 catastrophic single point of failure and in that regard it degrades safety. It doesn’t get rid of a single point of failure it just adds one. If you put an electric sparrow strainer on the PF is going to be appreciably worse unless you had an extremely slow actuator that could reduce the time of occurence. If there is anything more than a simple toggle switch (software) you would need an involved ver-Val test program.
>>>
>>> If a reputable aerospace company were to do this we would consider it a land as soon as practical EP, We’d determine the stick loads allowed for continued safe flight and landing, do extensive sims to test the pilots time of response to the failure in the worst phase of flight, add some margin to that time and then ensure that the trim Is slow enough to prevent those loads from developing before the pilot responds. This is not ever the preferred approach of mitigating a catastrophic failure and there’s a few hundred families who buried loved ones last year, due to a very similar scenario, that would likely agree.
>>>
>>> For reference Proteus has a trim-able sparrow strainer, everybody that touches the airplane is petrified of it (for good reason) and it’s the subject of a lot of conversation. Just bringing that up to say it’s a fairly well understood dilemma around here.
>>>
>>> Matthew Curcio
>>> 419-290-3773
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2019, at 11:46, charlie <ffmd@...> wrote:
>>>> Way back in the mid '80s when I was building my Q1 with the first customer LS1 airfoil. I built the sparrow Strainers on hinges and drove then with model servos.
>>>> Intention was for this to be the trim system.
>>>> Being we have not flown this plane yet I have no clue how well this would work. Seems right thought.
>>>> CharlieN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





7561 - 7580 of 56079