|
Re: Dave and Jay videos!!!
Hi Dave,
Would you mind giving a little more information about your auto pilot set up and what app you’re using on your android .
love the videos!
thanks.
Mike200 wannabe
|
|
|
Correction on the ailerons. The tube is 5/8 outside and the mass balance are 5/8 inside and 3/4 outside.--- Chris -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
yes. 12 or 24 v ?
However, why replace that thing? They’re heavy, draw a lot of power, and expensive. We quit using them a long time ago, which is why we have them. Go to Strobes and More and buy a power supply that is 1/10 the size. weight and uses milliamperes
RyZ
On Dec 16, 2020, at 22:26, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
How much do you want for it?
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Sam Kittle <skittle@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:24:45 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Power Supply
Jim,
I have one.
Sam
From: main@Q-List.groups.io [mailto:main@Q-List.groups.io]
On Behalf Of Jim Patillo
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:21 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Power Supply
Does anyone have a Whelen power supply you may want to part with? Mine took a crap. Its for 3 in 1 wing strobe, nav and tail lights. See attachment.
Jim
N46JP - Q200
|
|
|
Jim, Check with wheelen with regards to powering up a supply that the capacitor has gone flat. I did, and has been working for 15 years without problem. If I recall, putting full power to the unit will fry it. Needs to be brought up slowly. The folks at wheelen were very helpful. 2cents,
Kevin
On Dec 16, 2020, at 10:26 PM, Jim Patillo < Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
How much do you want for it?
Jim,
I have one.
Sam
Does anyone have a Whelen power supply you may want to part with? Mine took a crap. Its for 3 in 1 wing strobe, nav and tail lights. See attachment.
Jim
N46JP - Q200
|
|
|
Richard Kaczmarek 3RD
We have 9 of them how many would you like?
Richard Kaczmarek Aviation Composites LLC
|
|
|
This fella says he has a few. Not sure it's the same your looking for, but he wants $250 for all of them. Worth a look https://www.facebook.com/groups/2226961823/permalink/10157879084506824/ John Hartley
Most of the money I've made in my life has been spent on airplanes. I wasted the rest.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:21 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote: Does anyone have a Whelen power supply you may want to part with? Mine took a crap. Its for 3 in 1 wing strobe, nav and tail lights. See attachment.
Jim
N46JP - Q200
|
|
|
Jim Patillo
How much do you want for it?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Sam Kittle <skittle@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:24:45 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Power Supply
Jim,
I have one.
Sam
From: main@Q-List.groups.io [mailto:main@Q-List.groups.io]
On Behalf Of Jim Patillo
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:21 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Power Supply
Does anyone have a Whelen power supply you may want to part with? Mine took a crap. Its for 3 in 1 wing strobe, nav and tail lights. See attachment.
Jim
N46JP - Q200
|
|
|
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Q-List.groups.io [mailto:main@Q-List.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:21 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Power Supply Does anyone have a Whelen power supply you may want to part with? Mine took a crap. Its for 3 in 1 wing strobe, nav and tail lights. See attachment.
Jim
N46JP - Q200
|
|
|
Jim Patillo
Does anyone have a Whelen power supply you may want to part with? Mine took a crap. Its for 3 in 1 wing strobe, nav and tail lights. See attachment.
Jim
N46JP - Q200
|
|
|
Changed up the aileron set up a bit. The 1/2 tube is installed permanentley inside the aileron. The inner phenolic bearing is drilled for the size of the mass balance. 5/8. The 1/2 inch tube slides inside this and the bellcrank. Nothing is bolted in the picture, but if I slide the bellcrank out and the mass balance in , I can move the aileron in and then slice it from the hinges. I also have a center hinge on the aileron. The bellcrank and the mass balance arm will slide off. I will have a removable root fairing between the aileron and the fuselage. The inner bellcrank hold the aileron out so there is no need for a spacer. In the picture you can see I have the reflexor and the two cables above it is for aileron trim. Doing bodywork. I think I will end up using two West epoxi kits and almost ten lbs of micro. Eight pounds get sanded off. Take care---------------- Chris -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
FW: Reminder: Next on SocialFlight Live! - Kevin Lacy from Airplane Repo - Tue Dec 15th, 8pm ET starts in 1 Day
Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Check this out Tues night. Great hour. Has good programs and guests. Last week he had Mike Busch for a great discussion on aviation oils. Week before was founder of Cirrus. Jeff is an AI with a shop in MA. Tues is stories from a Repro guy. Should be good. He is on every Tues 8:00 Eastern time. Jerry
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Jeffrey Simon <customercare@...> Date: 12/14/20 7:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: jnmarstall@... Subject: Reminder: Next on SocialFlight Live! - Kevin Lacy from Airplane Repo - Tue Dec 15th, 8pm ET starts in 1 Day
|
This is a reminder that "Next on SocialFlight Live! - Kevin Lacy from Airplane Repo - Tue Dec 15th, 8pm ET" will begin in 1 Day on:
Wed, Dec 16, 2020 1:00 AM - 2:00 AM GMT
Add to Calendar:
Outlook® Calendar |
Google Calendar™ |
iCal®
Please send your questions, comments and feedback to: jeff.simon@...
How to Join the Webinar
1. Click the link to join the webinar at the specified time and date:
Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you.
Before joining, be sure to check system requirements to avoid any connection issues.
Webinar ID: 634-420-523
To Cancel this Registration
If you can't attend this webinar, you may cancel your registration at any time.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Also, you dont want to wait 3+ secs on a go around for the board to retract.
-------- Original message -------- From: smeshno1@... Date: 12/14/20 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: main@Q-List.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I see your point, that this is a drag device intended to slow the approach over the fence. The gain of in runway in sight would be
also an improvement. All on or all off.
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gmail <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:39 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
It is a single lever that has variable internal friction stops. This means that wherever position the lever, it remains on that position without having to tighten a friction lock. I quickly discovered I didnt need this feature. Either I wanted
the board down or up. No reason for intermediate positions. I just looked in ACS to no avail. Doesn't mean it isn't there. I just didn't find it.
Reflexer
For which? The reflexer or belly board?
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 12:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?
Mac server from. ACS. Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.
My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam.
He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
is another one added to the list of items to track down.
Vern
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim. I use the reflexer for pitch trim. I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying
a trimmed airplane.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end.
As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.
Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.
Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.
Rich T.
On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.
Jerry
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from
the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing
air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment.
Richard
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Hi Michael,
On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for
me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.
The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.
Br
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?
QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)
The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
- The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
- From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
- The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although
Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...
Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
|
|
|
Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Frankenbird Vern
I see your point, that this is a drag device intended to slow the approach over the fence. The gain of in runway in sight would be
also an improvement. All on or all off.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gmail <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:39 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
It is a single lever that has variable internal friction stops. This means that wherever position the lever, it remains on that position without having to tighten a friction lock. I quickly discovered I didnt need this feature. Either I wanted
the board down or up. No reason for intermediate positions. I just looked in ACS to no avail. Doesn't mean it isn't there. I just didn't find it.
Reflexer
For which? The reflexer or belly board?
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 12:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?
Mac server from. ACS. Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.
My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam.
He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
is another one added to the list of items to track down.
Vern
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim. I use the reflexer for pitch trim. I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying
a trimmed airplane.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end.
As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.
Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.
Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.
Rich T.
On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.
Jerry
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from
the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing
air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment.
Richard
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Hi Michael,
On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for
me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.
The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.
Br
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?
QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)
The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
- The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
- From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
- The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although
Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...
Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
|
|
|
Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Frankenbird Vern
Of course, Jerry. You installed a reflex system that to me makes the most intuitive as one pilot to another. What parts were involved?
I presume you retained the offset cam to move both ailerons in sync? What electrical motor and indicator were used and if you have some photo of the system installed
that would also be of help.
Vern
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gmail <jerrylm1986@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:41 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Oops I answered the wrong question. Are you sure you want any suggestions from me?
The reflexer is what used to be called the Mac server. Has electric position indicator option.
Reflexer
For which? The reflexer or belly board?
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 12:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?
Mac server from. ACS. Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.
My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam.
He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
is another one added to the list of items to track down.
Vern
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim. I use the reflexer for pitch trim. I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying
a trimmed airplane.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end.
As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.
Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.
Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.
Rich T.
On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.
Jerry
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from
the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing
air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment.
Richard
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Hi Michael,
On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for
me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.
The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.
Br
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?
QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)
The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
- The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
- From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
- The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although
Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...
Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
|
|
|
Re: Dave and Jay videos!!!
Jay Scheevel
I will second that, Dave. Looking forward to a time when we can fly side by side! Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Dugas via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 1:42 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Dave and Jay videos!!! Thanks Bruce. Jay may have incorporated a couple more "improvements" but we're still breaking the fun barrier. Yesssah. On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:21 AM, Bruce Crain Man I loved those videos you two posted!! If I were still building those would definitely give me a shot in the "go get em"! Nice landing also you guys!
|
|
|
This is all awesome and useful information!
|
|
|
Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Oops I answered the wrong question. Are you sure you want any suggestions from me?
The reflexer is what used to be called the Mac server. Has electric position indicator option.
Reflexer
For which? The reflexer or belly board?
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 12:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?
Mac server from. ACS. Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.
My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam.
He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
is another one added to the list of items to track down.
Vern
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim. I use the reflexer for pitch trim. I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying
a trimmed airplane.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end.
As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.
Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.
Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.
Rich T.
On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.
Jerry
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from
the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing
air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment.
Richard
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Hi Michael,
On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for
me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.
The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.
Br
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?
QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)
The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
- The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
- From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
- The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although
Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...
Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
|
|
|
Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
It is a single lever that has variable internal friction stops. This means that wherever position the lever, it remains on that position without having to tighten a friction lock. I quickly discovered I didnt need this feature. Either I wanted the board down or up. No reason for intermediate positions. I just looked in ACS to no avail. Doesn't mean it isn't there. I just didn't find it.
Reflexer
For which? The reflexer or belly board?
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 12:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?
Mac server from. ACS. Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.
My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam.
He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
is another one added to the list of items to track down.
Vern
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim. I use the reflexer for pitch trim. I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying
a trimmed airplane.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end.
As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.
Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.
Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.
Rich T.
On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.
Jerry
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from
the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing
air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment.
Richard
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Hi Michael,
On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for
me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.
The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.
Br
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?
QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)
The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
- The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
- From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
- The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although
Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...
Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
|
|
|
Sorry Thinking auto and as I said I have lots on the go, too much to add the start of this project right now. Should free up a lot of time next month then I can dig into this.
II think I should have asked about this on another chain. I was asking about the belly board.
Thanks
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 12:16 PM Jay Scheevel, < jay@...> wrote: Welcome, Mike. I have never heard of a bell pan. Can you send a picture? Cheers, Jay From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Steinsland
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:15 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io Group Moderators <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Fuselage assembly Hi guys I live in Parry Sound Ontario. I just picked up a project that I plan on getting into after the new year and all the business of the holidays are over I have a ton of questions but I'll save them for later when I can keep up the corespondence. One question I do have since you're on the topic I do have what appears to be aftermarket drawings of the bell pan install They're pretty messy to read Dies anyone have any clear drawings? Lots of good stuff I have been reading for the last month from you guys I'm looking forward to the project Proseal is great for aluminum tanks but does not like any type of auto fuels do to additives outside of ethanol/methanol and it never fully hardens. Van's aircraft uses it to seal their tanks. We have always used Rhino 9700 on epoxy tanks it was created to protect epoxy structures from acids and alchohol it is a great way to make sure a fiberglass epoxy tank never leaks. Since it is an epoxy with a Novak backbone it will not peel like other tank coatings. It does not work on a metal surface. It has been used for years by Lancair in all their tanks as well as A2CZ and other epoxy build aircraft. Pure epoxy works just fine. Just make sure you have good coverage. An aluminum tank makes no sense. As for compounds to prevent leaks, that's what the epoxy is for. I have heard of people of applying sealant to the inside of the tanks and it peeled off and made a big complicated mess. Again, you're looking at a solution in search of a problem. On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:00 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote: I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.
|
|
|
Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Frankenbird Vern
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:25 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
For which? The reflexer or belly board?
-------- Original message --------
From: smeshno1@...
Date: 12/13/20 12:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:24 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Mac server from. ACS. Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.
-------- Original message --------
From: smeshno1@...
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.
My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam.
He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
is another one added to the list of items to track down.
Vern
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 9:26 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim. I use the reflexer for pitch trim. I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying
a trimmed airplane.
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end.
As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.
Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.
Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.
Rich T.
On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.
Jerry
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from
the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing
air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment.
Richard
-------- Original message --------
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
Hi Michael,
On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for
me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.
The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.
Br
Rich T.
On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?
QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)
The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
- The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
- From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
- The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although
Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...
Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
|
|
|
