Date   

Re: clearance

Jim Patillo
 

I don’t know but all’s I know is FAA FISDO signed mine off at 25 hours. No issue. It’s an experimental! I’ve managed some pretty shitty landings (have a G meter to prove it), some loaded pretty heavy and have never pranged the prop. Just sayin’

Jim
N46JP - Q200

Sent from Outer Space


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Cringely <bob@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 6:29:48 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance
 
It's experimental so do whatever you can get away with, but for Part 23 certification, the FAA requires nine inches for taildraggers with flat tires:

Sec. 23.925 — Propeller clearance.

Unless smaller clearances are substantiated, propeller clearances, with the airplane at the most adverse combination of weight and center of gravity, and with the propeller in the most adverse pitch position, may not be less than the following:

(a) Ground clearance. There must be a clearance of at least seven inches (for each airplane with nose wheel landing gear) or nine inches (for each airplane with tail wheel landing gear) between each propeller and the ground with the landing gear statically deflected and in the level, normal takeoff, or taxing attitude, whichever is most critical. In addition, for each airplane with conventional landing gear struts using fluid or mechanical means for absorbing landing shocks, there must be positive clearance between the propeller and the ground in the level takeoff attitude with the critical tire completely deflated and the corresponding landing gear strut bottomed. Positive clearance for airplanes using leaf spring struts is shown with a deflection corresponding to 1.5 g.

(b) Aft-mounted propellers. In addition to the clearances specified in paragraph (a) of this section, an airplane with an aft mounted propeller must be designed such that the propeller will not contact the runway surface when the airplane is in the maximum pitch attitude attainable during normal takeoffs and landings.

(c) Water clearance. There must be a clearance of at least 18 inches between each propeller and the water, unless compliance with §23.239 can be shown with a lesser clearance.

(d) Structural clearance. There must be—

(1) At least one inch radial clearance between the blade tips and the airplane structure, plus any additional radial clearance necessary to prevent harmful vibration;

(2) At least one-half inch longitudinal clearance between the propeller blades or cuffs and stationary parts of the airplane; and

(3) Positive clearance between other rotating parts of the propeller or spinner and stationary parts of the airplane.

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 23–43, 58 FR 18971, Apr. 9, 1993; Amdt. 23–51, 61 FR 5136, Feb. 9, 1996; Amdt. 23–48, 61 FR 5148, Feb. 9, 1996]



On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:08 PM Richard Kaczmarek 3RD <fastlittleairplanes@...> wrote:
Actually depending on who you use for the AW certification prop clearance does matter. The FAA here would not sign off on AW for a tri gear Sonex due to the prop only having a light 5" of clearance. To show us why he had us let the air out on the nose wheel at which point the tips would just miss the ground. Then said "a flat tire just got you a prop strike".

Richard

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 7:52 PM Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
ZZzzzzzzzzzz....... I run a 60/72 Catto Prop.
Tailwheel first landing from the beginning, hopefully mains after that. Same prop since 2001. No issues. 
zzzzzzzzzzZZ.

Jim
N46JP Q200



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of gbrighton@... <gbrighton@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:02:55 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance
 
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

Terry Adams
 

Speeduino EFI and EI works quite well, and is a good continuation of "Experimental" aircraft.� Nothing against SDS which I am using in my T18.

Terry
N41521� DF Mk1

On 2/18/2021 3:02 PM, gbrighton@... wrote:
Chris,
���������� Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance Doesn't sound� enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? .. Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!� ... and have now installed a SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good� .. and if weather is ok will be test Flying it this wkend� .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance


�What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.� Does the Q do a
flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?

�With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.

thanks -----------� Chris







-- 
Communication ink and paper free


Re: clearance

Robert Cringely
 

It's experimental so do whatever you can get away with, but for Part 23 certification, the FAA requires nine inches for taildraggers with flat tires:

Sec. 23.925 — Propeller clearance.

Unless smaller clearances are substantiated, propeller clearances, with the airplane at the most adverse combination of weight and center of gravity, and with the propeller in the most adverse pitch position, may not be less than the following:

(a) Ground clearance. There must be a clearance of at least seven inches (for each airplane with nose wheel landing gear) or nine inches (for each airplane with tail wheel landing gear) between each propeller and the ground with the landing gear statically deflected and in the level, normal takeoff, or taxing attitude, whichever is most critical. In addition, for each airplane with conventional landing gear struts using fluid or mechanical means for absorbing landing shocks, there must be positive clearance between the propeller and the ground in the level takeoff attitude with the critical tire completely deflated and the corresponding landing gear strut bottomed. Positive clearance for airplanes using leaf spring struts is shown with a deflection corresponding to 1.5 g.

(b) Aft-mounted propellers. In addition to the clearances specified in paragraph (a) of this section, an airplane with an aft mounted propeller must be designed such that the propeller will not contact the runway surface when the airplane is in the maximum pitch attitude attainable during normal takeoffs and landings.

(c) Water clearance. There must be a clearance of at least 18 inches between each propeller and the water, unless compliance with §23.239 can be shown with a lesser clearance.

(d) Structural clearance. There must be—

(1) At least one inch radial clearance between the blade tips and the airplane structure, plus any additional radial clearance necessary to prevent harmful vibration;

(2) At least one-half inch longitudinal clearance between the propeller blades or cuffs and stationary parts of the airplane; and

(3) Positive clearance between other rotating parts of the propeller or spinner and stationary parts of the airplane.

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 23–43, 58 FR 18971, Apr. 9, 1993; Amdt. 23–51, 61 FR 5136, Feb. 9, 1996; Amdt. 23–48, 61 FR 5148, Feb. 9, 1996]



On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:08 PM Richard Kaczmarek 3RD <fastlittleairplanes@...> wrote:
Actually depending on who you use for the AW certification prop clearance does matter. The FAA here would not sign off on AW for a tri gear Sonex due to the prop only having a light 5" of clearance. To show us why he had us let the air out on the nose wheel at which point the tips would just miss the ground. Then said "a flat tire just got you a prop strike".

Richard

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 7:52 PM Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
ZZzzzzzzzzzz....... I run a 60/72 Catto Prop.
Tailwheel first landing from the beginning, hopefully mains after that. Same prop since 2001. No issues. 
zzzzzzzzzzZZ.

Jim
N46JP Q200



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of gbrighton@... <gbrighton@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:02:55 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance
 
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

Richard Kaczmarek 3RD
 

Actually depending on who you use for the AW certification prop clearance does matter. The FAA here would not sign off on AW for a tri gear Sonex due to the prop only having a light 5" of clearance. To show us why he had us let the air out on the nose wheel at which point the tips would just miss the ground. Then said "a flat tire just got you a prop strike".

Richard

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 7:52 PM Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
ZZzzzzzzzzzz....... I run a 60/72 Catto Prop.
Tailwheel first landing from the beginning, hopefully mains after that. Same prop since 2001. No issues. 
zzzzzzzzzzZZ.

Jim
N46JP Q200



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of gbrighton@... <gbrighton@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:02:55 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance
 
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

Jay Scheevel
 

I have 11 inches of clearance, but I am in a tri-gear and my prop is 54 inches in diameter. If I ran Jim’s prop length, I would be 8 inch clearance. I think you do not want 3 inch clearance even if you think you are not going to strike the prop (although a good bounced landing and you will flex the canard at least 3 inches), but the main concern would be ruining your prop by sucking in debris off the ground.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 5:53 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance

 

ZZzzzzzzzzzz....... I run a 60/72 Catto Prop.

Tailwheel first landing from the beginning, hopefully mains after that. Same prop since 2001. No issues. 

zzzzzzzzzzZZ.

 

Jim

N46JP Q200

 

 

 

Sent from Outer Space


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of gbrighton@... <gbrighton@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:02:55 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance

 

Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>


Re: clearance

ryan goodman
 

Sounds like you tail dragger guys are getting away with a few more inches than the TriQ folks.


On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:52 PM, Jim Patillo
<Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
ZZzzzzzzzzzz....... I run a 60/72 Catto Prop.
Tailwheel first landing from the beginning, hopefully mains after that. Same prop since 2001. No issues. 
zzzzzzzzzzZZ.

Jim
N46JP Q200



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of gbrighton@... <gbrighton@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:02:55 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance
 
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

Jim Patillo
 

ZZzzzzzzzzzz....... I run a 60/72 Catto Prop.
Tailwheel first landing from the beginning, hopefully mains after that. Same prop since 2001. No issues. 
zzzzzzzzzzZZ.

Jim
N46JP Q200



Sent from Outer Space


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of gbrighton@... <gbrighton@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:02:55 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] clearance
 
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

ryan goodman
 

Caveat: this doesn't apply to experimental. But it's the standard for certified and fully aligns with what most people seem to think is prudent. You are the ultimate decider though. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.925


On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:23 PM, Paul Fisher
<rv7a.n18pf@...> wrote:
(...yawn...) Ok, I'm awake now, my bad.

I've got a 60"x68" prop on mine and have no problems with ground clearance.  I haven't measured it with the fuselage level.  I'll try to do that next time I'm at the hangar.  It's too cold and snowy to do anything else!

I take off and land at ground attack angle (all three wheels depart and land simultaneously).  I do not do wheel landings.  If the tail wheel doesn't touch down with the mains, I'm going way too fast.  Not to say I haven't done it, but I immediately know I screwed up!

Your milage may vary, but that's how I've been flying it all these years.

Paul Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

Now back to it... ZZZZzzzz



On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 17:03 <gbrighton@...> wrote:
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

Paul Fisher
 

(...yawn...) Ok, I'm awake now, my bad.

I've got a 60"x68" prop on mine and have no problems with ground clearance.  I haven't measured it with the fuselage level.  I'll try to do that next time I'm at the hangar.  It's too cold and snowy to do anything else!

I take off and land at ground attack angle (all three wheels depart and land simultaneously).  I do not do wheel landings.  If the tail wheel doesn't touch down with the mains, I'm going way too fast.  Not to say I haven't done it, but I immediately know I screwed up!

Your milage may vary, but that's how I've been flying it all these years.

Paul Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

Now back to it... ZZZZzzzz



On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 17:03 <gbrighton@...> wrote:
Chris,
            Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance
Doesn't sound  enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? ..
Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are
getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for
Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long
story short i have 'left' that effort ... !!  ... and have now installed a
SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good  .. and if weather is ok will be test
Flying it this wkend  .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance

>
>  What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a
> flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?
>
>  With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
> prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.
>
> thanks -----------  Chris
>
>
>
>



Re: clearance

gbrighton@...
 

Chris,
Im not qualified to answer but 3 inch Prop /Gnd clearance Doesn't sound enough ! .. The Flying Q guys are asleep on this one !? .. Seeing the Exhaust coming out of the Cowling is looking like things are getting Serious ; )
You let me know on another List that you were intending the use SDS for Engine management . I was hoping to use the OEM Soob ecu .. anyway long story short i have 'left' that effort ... !! ... and have now installed a SDS ecu .. Gnd running seems good .. and if weather is ok will be test Flying it this wkend .
Graham

.
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] clearance


What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?. Does the Q do a
flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?

With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch
prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.

thanks ----------- Chris



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


Re: Dave Smith's Q-Tour is uploaded to YouTube

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Is it true? Does one's name have to be Dave to fly a pure Q2?

-------- Original message --------
From: "Dave Dugas via groups.io" <davedq2@...>
Date: 2/17/21 7:53 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Dave Smith's Q-Tour is uploaded to YouTube

Dave Smith
Very nice Q Tour of your plane. I was very interested in your construction, especially the engine installation and baffling. Beautiful job.
Thank you.... Dave Dugas


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Crain
<jcrain2@...> wrote:
Dave Smith I really enjoyed watching and listening to your video!  Fantastic, low weight, beautiful Quickie!  In a shameless plug we could use more great stories and aircraft at Field Of Dreams next September!  Great bunch of folks and airplanes.  Bring Jim Patillo and Phil Langford with you and Any Dragonfly and Q that you can coax!

Nice to put the plane and the face together!  Thank you soo much!
Bruce Crain


On Feb 15, 2021, at 8:44 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi Dave,

I watched your video this afternoon. Sorry I couldn’t make the Zoom meeting yesterday. 

I’ve never run into you anywhere which is kind of strange, since you’re only 30 miles from Livermore. I started my kit in December 1981 in Fremont and finished it in Livermore. I’ve been flying my Q200 out of there since 2000. You must have gotten your kit thru Gordon Pratt and his dad, like I did. 

I’m surprised you’ve flown it all these years with a GU canard with one sparrow strainer and no VG’s. 
You must have had some butt puckering moments. 
I've seen up close how a Quickie with GU canard and no vg’s react in rain. It’s down hill.

Thanks for sharing. Hope to see you some time. 

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




Re: Dave Smith's Q-Tour is uploaded to YouTube

Dave Dugas
 

Dave Smith
Very nice Q Tour of your plane. I was very interested in your construction, especially the engine installation and baffling. Beautiful job.
Thank you.... Dave Dugas


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Crain
<jcrain2@...> wrote:
Dave Smith I really enjoyed watching and listening to your video!  Fantastic, low weight, beautiful Quickie!  In a shameless plug we could use more great stories and aircraft at Field Of Dreams next September!  Great bunch of folks and airplanes.  Bring Jim Patillo and Phil Langford with you and Any Dragonfly and Q that you can coax!

Nice to put the plane and the face together!  Thank you soo much!
Bruce Crain


On Feb 15, 2021, at 8:44 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi Dave,

I watched your video this afternoon. Sorry I couldn’t make the Zoom meeting yesterday. 

I’ve never run into you anywhere which is kind of strange, since you’re only 30 miles from Livermore. I started my kit in December 1981 in Fremont and finished it in Livermore. I’ve been flying my Q200 out of there since 2000. You must have gotten your kit thru Gordon Pratt and his dad, like I did. 

I’m surprised you’ve flown it all these years with a GU canard with one sparrow strainer and no VG’s. 
You must have had some butt puckering moments. 
I've seen up close how a Quickie with GU canard and no vg’s react in rain. It’s down hill.

Thanks for sharing. Hope to see you some time. 

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




Re: Dave Smith's Q-Tour is uploaded to YouTube

Bruce Crain
 

Dave Smith I really enjoyed watching and listening to your video!  Fantastic, low weight, beautiful Quickie!  In a shameless plug we could use more great stories and aircraft at Field Of Dreams next September!  Great bunch of folks and airplanes.  Bring Jim Patillo and Phil Langford with you and Any Dragonfly and Q that you can coax!

Nice to put the plane and the face together!  Thank you soo much!
Bruce Crain


On Feb 15, 2021, at 8:44 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Hi Dave,

I watched your video this afternoon. Sorry I couldn’t make the Zoom meeting yesterday. 

I’ve never run into you anywhere which is kind of strange, since you’re only 30 miles from Livermore. I started my kit in December 1981 in Fremont and finished it in Livermore. I’ve been flying my Q200 out of there since 2000. You must have gotten your kit thru Gordon Pratt and his dad, like I did. 

I’m surprised you’ve flown it all these years with a GU canard with one sparrow strainer and no VG’s. 
You must have had some butt puckering moments. 
I've seen up close how a Quickie with GU canard and no vg’s react in rain. It’s down hill.

Thanks for sharing. Hope to see you some time. 

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




Re: File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice

Jay Scheevel
 

I have these to start with. Probably need some touch-ups.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 1:21 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice

 

Richard, I am hoping that someone will step up and format a full-size drawing that can be downloaded, maybe as a .dxf type file.  Maybe you for instance?

 

I think what needs to happen is to first get a hold of the Q-200 LS-1 template.  It might be in the Q-List files section, or you might have to get it from Quickheads. Or, mayne someone already has it available. (I'm not going to look for it myself). 

 

Then figure out how to transfer what you see in Larry's drawing into the QAC LS-1 drawing.  After you get that, please share with the rest of the Quickie world and be famous. Maybe others may pipe in. 

 

Thanks.

 

Sam

 

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 3:05 AM Richard Gammon <gamzoom@...> wrote:

Sam,

 

I am not currently building, but studying the core and carbon process and interested in the LS-1 specifications.

 

I have viewed the LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg  and found the resolution is only 97 P/ins. The numbers are hard to read and lines fuzzy.

 

Is there a higher resolution file available ?

 

Thanks.

Richard.

******************

 

Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 1:30 PM

Subject: [Q-List] File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice

 


clearance

Chris Walterson
 

What are we looking for in prop to ground clearance?.  Does the Q do a flair on landing or does it stay relativley flat?

 With the water line level I have three inch clearance with a 58 inch prop. I can cut it down no problem if need be.

thanks -----------  Chris



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice

Sam Hoskins
 

Richard, I am hoping that someone will step up and format a full-size drawing that can be downloaded, maybe as a .dxf type file.  Maybe you for instance?

I think what needs to happen is to first get a hold of the Q-200 LS-1 template.  It might be in the Q-List files section, or you might have to get it from Quickheads. Or, mayne someone already has it available. (I'm not going to look for it myself). 

Then figure out how to transfer what you see in Larry's drawing into the QAC LS-1 drawing.  After you get that, please share with the rest of the Quickie world and be famous. Maybe others may pipe in. 

Thanks.

Sam

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 3:05 AM Richard Gammon <gamzoom@...> wrote:
Sam,
 
I am not currently building, but studying the core and carbon process and interested in the LS-1 specifications.
 
I have viewed the LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg  and found the resolution is only 97 P/ins. The numbers are hard to read and lines fuzzy.
 
Is there a higher resolution file available ?
 
Thanks.
Richard.
******************
 
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 1:30 PM
Subject: [Q-List] File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice
 

The following files have been uploaded to the Files area of the main@Q-List.groups.io group.

By: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>


Re: Wing load testing and max weight

smeshno1@...
 

 I've been thinking about that vacation we had south of Tampa in October now for a week!  


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 1:23 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight
 
Nope.  Not suffering.  But that’s all I can say for now.  😎
Bruce


On Feb 17, 2021, at 11:59 AM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 That is true. Tulsa has over 130 main water breaks. We are located about 40 miles West of the city. Any city from 
here South have few preparations for polar winters. Never seen Houston with snow on the ground before. 
 I grew up (mostly) in Wichita Kansas and it is not uncommon to have severe Winters 
(at least then in the 1960's and 1970's). As you know it is all about preparing and building to protect systems. 

 On my small acre place we are on my own systems..mostly off grid. Even so the situation was not comfortable 
with winds and temps that low. My wife is from Russia so -25C is a walk in the park for her family overseas.    

Yesterday was -17F.... day after tommorrow is expected to be 60F!   

Bruce and the citizens in the panhandle area's have been suffering at this longer than we. 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:39 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight
 

Sounds like you could just set that prepreg outside these days, Vern 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:54 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 I don't have any contacts inside Nordam now Charlie but that may change as the year moves on..especially for Contractors. The biz-jet business is not as impacted by the current travel restrictions as commercial. 

 

If there is access to the out of cert prepreg I am wondering where it goes now. We were weekly running out of cert in the freezer..having to once again ask the supplier to sign off. Once we reached the third "re-cert" that was it as far as any of our suppliers were willing to accept. Manufacturing pissed and moaned at us but we were not about to re-stamp any after the third extension. You know how it is as M.E.   Rarely were we the good guys.

 

Needless to say..Gulfstream has every right to hammer any supplier pushing the numbers. The actual reason Nordam took the hit on the G500/G600 Nacelle and Cowling program was because they never fully had Gulfstream acceptance of what Inspection process was acceptable through delivery. Thermography was the "supposed to be" and then the fiasco began when that was shot down right in the middle of First Article (which was still in progress after 30 ship sets were delivered!!). 

 

 I am very sure that Nordam was set up...Gulfstream was very well aware of the investment that $200 Million in loans

bought at the Nordam NTR facility. Now Gulfstream owns all that nice composite equipment. I call Gulfstream the "Wal Mart" of bizjets

now due the tactics they pull..and they do earn that rep often.  

 

Anyway   

 

 Of course there is nothing wrong with the material at all for our (Experimental aviation) use..as long as it stayed in the freezer. They (Nordam) over the years had to reject millions in material due to the CYA mentality for certificated aircraft. I see no reason at all that this beam spar could not have major advantages. At an 18 foot (Q 2/200) span there would be no advantage to have a spar flex as a tube will.  Better the gear accept the landing load, but the beam would definitely nullify the current concerns. The beam interface to the skins alone would make this worthwhile to fab up.

 

Vern in frozen Oklahoma. (-15F last night, more snow on the way) 

 

 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 7:16 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

Jay,

 

Speaking of “I” beams. We designed one for our engineering class that we could build using simple tooling. We used out of date pre-preg that could not be used on weapon systems. This could be done with “OOA” out of autoclave pre-Impregnated materials that are available today. It is very similar to how the Voyager spars were manufactured in Ed’s garage.

 

<image001.jpg>

 

3” X 3” X 36” carbon/ epoxy “I” beam Manufactured for 4 point bending load test.

 

<image002.jpg>

 

We actually went beyond analytics in refining the beam and had to take a lot of material out in later beams to avoid destroying the test fixture. In my opinion an I-beam is a better option than a circular spar as a load carrying element. Shear loads are 1/10 th of cap loads.

 

One Sky Dog



On Feb 16, 2021, at 5:26 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:

Jay,

 

My main point I was trying to make is the spar can take more deflection than the glass shell without reaching failure. This puts the first failure as compressive buckling of the top glass skin. The energy released from the skin buckle and transfer of full load to to the spar may or may not fail the spar. Bear in mind this only occurs when you hit the ground too hard or go on off runway excursions.

 

I am only capable of doing a crude analysis but it confirmed to me why the Q skin bubble or dent happens. Slapping more glass on the problem area may just move the problem to somewhere else.

High today 54 F expected 70 F by weekend. Stay warm out there!

One Sky Dog

 

 



On Feb 15, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:



Not to put words in Charlie’s mouth, but I think I heard him say (when he was showing me a structural simulation of the LS1 canard on his computer) that he felt the weak link in the chain was the skin/foam sandwich forward of the tube spar and inboard but not too far from the fuselage. That seems to be the place where the delamination has happened on numerous aircraft, even where the canard did not break.

 

The official QAC line was that the tubular spar was required because of the thin profile of the LS1 would not allow enough flexural strength if it that shape of airfoil was laid up conventionally. I think a properly engineered I-beam spar (or two) would probably fill the bill, but no one has tested that idea to my knowledge. QAC probably looked a the tube spar as a way of ensuring that customers did not drift towards hand building Q200’s without buying kit components from them. I would not write that motivation off entirely.

 

So many more options exist now.  I think anything requiring an autoclave should be ruled out for the general public, as it is not a tool that is available to most. The best bet would be to find an enthusiastic, enterprising, young graduate student, who is good with composites analysis and solid works, and ask them to do some modeling of proven hand laid up carbon fiber spar configurations subjected to end loading (like the standard Q and Dfly configuration), combined with line loading that would simulate the fuselage shell wall loads. If it was proven by computer modeling, then you would only have to build one canard design for testing to failure.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 12:45 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 I couldn't recall if it was the Wing or Canard..thank you for the clarification, Jay.  Here is what Charlie and I both are

concerned about.. the Canard, especially in the MKI config, takes a beating in this design. Neither D-fly or Q2 have 

had the Canard tested (that we know of) and I cannot be certain of the load limits in my own aircraft. 

 

 So the airplane geek I was trained to be finds this situation unacceptable. Too many years in the factories worrying 

about "what if's!"   I am concerned we have had structural fails..thank goodness not to the point of 

augering in from 10,000 feet. There are indications of upper skin delam from the canard core..and crush of the core

leading to compression fails right where we expect these conditions to happen. The bond between the core and upper 

glass layup degrades over time...so the margin in safety to peak load will be reduced.

 

 So I have the question here.. I can build a fixture that can easily use my 1/2 ton Dodge truck to provide a stabilized test

fixture (the data plate on the truck indicates the mass we have to work with, also not a problem having certificated scales

weigh the vehicle).  How much in todays materials would a canard cost to build? No need to add finishes because these 

are not going flying..these are going to test to fail (if possible). I prefer testing the Dragonfly Canard for the reasons 

explained before. The M.E. within wants to test what is more likely of a successful build by the homebuilder in her/his

own Shop.  

 

We MIGHT be able to effectively tool for Q2 Spars and test those also. We would need to know the exact ply schedule,

finish, and resin used at QAC. What finish dry carbon fiber also. What tapes used?  A far superior part would be possible 

with pre-preg ribbon and the correct mandrel...but then the problem of autoclave and accurate cure arises. It might be

possible to correctly pre-preg fab the tapered tube Spars using internal inflated balloon methods and then cure the entire 

tool with the layup and mandrels in a controlled oven.

 

Village Idiot Vern        

     

 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:20 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

I think that Waddelow load tested his LS1 spar-less canard, but I do not know the limits. Maybe Bruce Crain has that information.

 

The test of the main wing at LVK was in 2008 and tested to a max of +4.4 G’s (2000 lb. of sandbags) with deflection of 10.5 inches on each wingtip, that returned to its original shape.

 

I agree with what Vern is saying. I only thought I would look up the data so I can correct what I said earlier about 18” of deflection. Was really 10.5”

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:36 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 The only test was in the news letters. Q Canard was tested in the past with static to 1200 lbs (positive). 

Sand bags from the local Big Box home improvement center.  On release, the tested surface resumed 

original design config(Q2, MKI Anhedral if my memory is correct) 

 

 The point is, from all builders/owners in the newsletters or blogs, of yet no test of either Dragonfly or Rutan Q surfaces 

(Wing or Canard) have been performed to failure..so there is no definite known max load other than Finite Element work. 

 

 Here is one project I had a bit of a hand in

 

 

<image001.png>

 

 She went 150% in this photo (and did not break).  I've flown over the Atlantic in a 787-9 but the wings were 

not at this point of flex.  I am pretty sure if they were my wife would have been a bit more than worried since 

she was with me on that flight from Stockholm to Ft Lauderdale.  

 

 When fail is reached it is upper surface compression, most often beginning at shear surface bondline (contact) from 

the spar/ribs to IML of the upper surface layup. Failure happens almost instantly but the strain gauges tell the tale

afterword.

 

 In our case the question arises of what is the bond of the glass layup to the solid core foam doing?  The Dragonfly 

having a different spar method than the Rutan carbon tube, so that is an important factor also. Delam of the skins 

from the foam is what we aught be expecting. The flex of the resin/glass compared to the foams involved. 

 

 Big question, and now BOTH foam and resin glass are different than in the 80's. I have extra orange Q2 foam to 

build the test surfaces but then again.. we can't obtain that same material now. The goal is to use what we can get 

and perhaps "back test" to the older material so the "as built" materials properties are known as well.   

 

 One of my "wish list" projects is to get the time and materials together to build a set of test surfaces to go to failure

in both positive and negative G. I have not heard of any flutter issues with either structural design. 

Vne may need be exceeded to discover that (sarcasm on high!)       

 

  Vern in frozen Oklahoma (Feb 12) 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 10:22 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

Hi Mike and Ryan,

 

I plugged 800 pounds GW into the Q200 aerodynamic model that I created several years ago (modeling the plans-built Q200). In this model, I get 67 mph CAS as the Vmin**, in ground effect.  When I increase the GW to 1400 pounds, I get a Vmin of 88 mph in ground effect. So that is probably as close an answer as you are going to get to your question about flying at 1400 pounds.

 

I usually fly between 1000 and 1100 pounds GW.  For those weights, the model produces a Vmin of 75 and 78 mph respectively.

 

I have also built a model that is customized to match my personal aircraft performance (Tri-Q2, with some minor aero mods). I get a Vmin of 70 mph at 1000 GW, and 74 mph at 1100 pounds. This is spot on with what I have measured in flight. At 1400 pounds, my plane would theoretically have a Vmin of 84 mph (I won’t be flight testing this!)

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

**I say Vmin because with a tandem wing configuration never really stalls, it just reaches a configuration where airspeed cannot get any lower and then the decent rate makes up for any energy deficit required to hold that airspeed…..but that is another story, for another time.

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 5:50 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

If the stall speed is 67mph at 800 lbs, what would it be at 1400 lbs?

 

The tail dragger LS1 canard is sized for the landing impact, not the in flight load.  

 

The factory Q200 had a 1100 lb gross weight limit.  Obviously they didn't think 1400 is safe.

 

Mike Q200 N3QP

 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:00 PM ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Q2/200/TriQ

 

Two questions(ok multi part, but two subjects): How many people have done a load test on their wing or canard? If so did you just use the cement bag method and how high did you test to. 

 

Anyone have a MTOW of 1400lbs or greater and is so what are you using? 

 

Thanks, Ryan

 




Re: Wing load testing and max weight

Bruce Crain
 

Nope.  Not suffering.  But that’s all I can say for now.  😎
Bruce


On Feb 17, 2021, at 11:59 AM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 That is true. Tulsa has over 130 main water breaks. We are located about 40 miles West of the city. Any city from 
here South have few preparations for polar winters. Never seen Houston with snow on the ground before. 
 I grew up (mostly) in Wichita Kansas and it is not uncommon to have severe Winters 
(at least then in the 1960's and 1970's). As you know it is all about preparing and building to protect systems. 

 On my small acre place we are on my own systems..mostly off grid. Even so the situation was not comfortable 
with winds and temps that low. My wife is from Russia so -25C is a walk in the park for her family overseas.    

Yesterday was -17F.... day after tommorrow is expected to be 60F!   

Bruce and the citizens in the panhandle area's have been suffering at this longer than we. 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:39 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight
 

Sounds like you could just set that prepreg outside these days, Vern 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:54 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 I don't have any contacts inside Nordam now Charlie but that may change as the year moves on..especially for Contractors. The biz-jet business is not as impacted by the current travel restrictions as commercial. 

 

If there is access to the out of cert prepreg I am wondering where it goes now. We were weekly running out of cert in the freezer..having to once again ask the supplier to sign off. Once we reached the third "re-cert" that was it as far as any of our suppliers were willing to accept. Manufacturing pissed and moaned at us but we were not about to re-stamp any after the third extension. You know how it is as M.E.   Rarely were we the good guys.

 

Needless to say..Gulfstream has every right to hammer any supplier pushing the numbers. The actual reason Nordam took the hit on the G500/G600 Nacelle and Cowling program was because they never fully had Gulfstream acceptance of what Inspection process was acceptable through delivery. Thermography was the "supposed to be" and then the fiasco began when that was shot down right in the middle of First Article (which was still in progress after 30 ship sets were delivered!!). 

 

 I am very sure that Nordam was set up...Gulfstream was very well aware of the investment that $200 Million in loans

bought at the Nordam NTR facility. Now Gulfstream owns all that nice composite equipment. I call Gulfstream the "Wal Mart" of bizjets

now due the tactics they pull..and they do earn that rep often.  

 

Anyway   

 

 Of course there is nothing wrong with the material at all for our (Experimental aviation) use..as long as it stayed in the freezer. They (Nordam) over the years had to reject millions in material due to the CYA mentality for certificated aircraft. I see no reason at all that this beam spar could not have major advantages. At an 18 foot (Q 2/200) span there would be no advantage to have a spar flex as a tube will.  Better the gear accept the landing load, but the beam would definitely nullify the current concerns. The beam interface to the skins alone would make this worthwhile to fab up.

 

Vern in frozen Oklahoma. (-15F last night, more snow on the way) 

 

 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 7:16 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

Jay,

 

Speaking of “I” beams. We designed one for our engineering class that we could build using simple tooling. We used out of date pre-preg that could not be used on weapon systems. This could be done with “OOA” out of autoclave pre-Impregnated materials that are available today. It is very similar to how the Voyager spars were manufactured in Ed’s garage.

 

<image001.jpg>

 

3” X 3” X 36” carbon/ epoxy “I” beam Manufactured for 4 point bending load test.

 

<image002.jpg>

 

We actually went beyond analytics in refining the beam and had to take a lot of material out in later beams to avoid destroying the test fixture. In my opinion an I-beam is a better option than a circular spar as a load carrying element. Shear loads are 1/10 th of cap loads.

 

One Sky Dog



On Feb 16, 2021, at 5:26 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:

Jay,

 

My main point I was trying to make is the spar can take more deflection than the glass shell without reaching failure. This puts the first failure as compressive buckling of the top glass skin. The energy released from the skin buckle and transfer of full load to to the spar may or may not fail the spar. Bear in mind this only occurs when you hit the ground too hard or go on off runway excursions.

 

I am only capable of doing a crude analysis but it confirmed to me why the Q skin bubble or dent happens. Slapping more glass on the problem area may just move the problem to somewhere else.

High today 54 F expected 70 F by weekend. Stay warm out there!

One Sky Dog

 

 



On Feb 15, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:



Not to put words in Charlie’s mouth, but I think I heard him say (when he was showing me a structural simulation of the LS1 canard on his computer) that he felt the weak link in the chain was the skin/foam sandwich forward of the tube spar and inboard but not too far from the fuselage. That seems to be the place where the delamination has happened on numerous aircraft, even where the canard did not break.

 

The official QAC line was that the tubular spar was required because of the thin profile of the LS1 would not allow enough flexural strength if it that shape of airfoil was laid up conventionally. I think a properly engineered I-beam spar (or two) would probably fill the bill, but no one has tested that idea to my knowledge. QAC probably looked a the tube spar as a way of ensuring that customers did not drift towards hand building Q200’s without buying kit components from them. I would not write that motivation off entirely.

 

So many more options exist now.  I think anything requiring an autoclave should be ruled out for the general public, as it is not a tool that is available to most. The best bet would be to find an enthusiastic, enterprising, young graduate student, who is good with composites analysis and solid works, and ask them to do some modeling of proven hand laid up carbon fiber spar configurations subjected to end loading (like the standard Q and Dfly configuration), combined with line loading that would simulate the fuselage shell wall loads. If it was proven by computer modeling, then you would only have to build one canard design for testing to failure.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 12:45 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 I couldn't recall if it was the Wing or Canard..thank you for the clarification, Jay.  Here is what Charlie and I both are

concerned about.. the Canard, especially in the MKI config, takes a beating in this design. Neither D-fly or Q2 have 

had the Canard tested (that we know of) and I cannot be certain of the load limits in my own aircraft. 

 

 So the airplane geek I was trained to be finds this situation unacceptable. Too many years in the factories worrying 

about "what if's!"   I am concerned we have had structural fails..thank goodness not to the point of 

augering in from 10,000 feet. There are indications of upper skin delam from the canard core..and crush of the core

leading to compression fails right where we expect these conditions to happen. The bond between the core and upper 

glass layup degrades over time...so the margin in safety to peak load will be reduced.

 

 So I have the question here.. I can build a fixture that can easily use my 1/2 ton Dodge truck to provide a stabilized test

fixture (the data plate on the truck indicates the mass we have to work with, also not a problem having certificated scales

weigh the vehicle).  How much in todays materials would a canard cost to build? No need to add finishes because these 

are not going flying..these are going to test to fail (if possible). I prefer testing the Dragonfly Canard for the reasons 

explained before. The M.E. within wants to test what is more likely of a successful build by the homebuilder in her/his

own Shop.  

 

We MIGHT be able to effectively tool for Q2 Spars and test those also. We would need to know the exact ply schedule,

finish, and resin used at QAC. What finish dry carbon fiber also. What tapes used?  A far superior part would be possible 

with pre-preg ribbon and the correct mandrel...but then the problem of autoclave and accurate cure arises. It might be

possible to correctly pre-preg fab the tapered tube Spars using internal inflated balloon methods and then cure the entire 

tool with the layup and mandrels in a controlled oven.

 

Village Idiot Vern        

     

 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:20 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

I think that Waddelow load tested his LS1 spar-less canard, but I do not know the limits. Maybe Bruce Crain has that information.

 

The test of the main wing at LVK was in 2008 and tested to a max of +4.4 G’s (2000 lb. of sandbags) with deflection of 10.5 inches on each wingtip, that returned to its original shape.

 

I agree with what Vern is saying. I only thought I would look up the data so I can correct what I said earlier about 18” of deflection. Was really 10.5”

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:36 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 The only test was in the news letters. Q Canard was tested in the past with static to 1200 lbs (positive). 

Sand bags from the local Big Box home improvement center.  On release, the tested surface resumed 

original design config(Q2, MKI Anhedral if my memory is correct) 

 

 The point is, from all builders/owners in the newsletters or blogs, of yet no test of either Dragonfly or Rutan Q surfaces 

(Wing or Canard) have been performed to failure..so there is no definite known max load other than Finite Element work. 

 

 Here is one project I had a bit of a hand in

 

 

<image001.png>

 

 She went 150% in this photo (and did not break).  I've flown over the Atlantic in a 787-9 but the wings were 

not at this point of flex.  I am pretty sure if they were my wife would have been a bit more than worried since 

she was with me on that flight from Stockholm to Ft Lauderdale.  

 

 When fail is reached it is upper surface compression, most often beginning at shear surface bondline (contact) from 

the spar/ribs to IML of the upper surface layup. Failure happens almost instantly but the strain gauges tell the tale

afterword.

 

 In our case the question arises of what is the bond of the glass layup to the solid core foam doing?  The Dragonfly 

having a different spar method than the Rutan carbon tube, so that is an important factor also. Delam of the skins 

from the foam is what we aught be expecting. The flex of the resin/glass compared to the foams involved. 

 

 Big question, and now BOTH foam and resin glass are different than in the 80's. I have extra orange Q2 foam to 

build the test surfaces but then again.. we can't obtain that same material now. The goal is to use what we can get 

and perhaps "back test" to the older material so the "as built" materials properties are known as well.   

 

 One of my "wish list" projects is to get the time and materials together to build a set of test surfaces to go to failure

in both positive and negative G. I have not heard of any flutter issues with either structural design. 

Vne may need be exceeded to discover that (sarcasm on high!)       

 

  Vern in frozen Oklahoma (Feb 12) 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 10:22 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

Hi Mike and Ryan,

 

I plugged 800 pounds GW into the Q200 aerodynamic model that I created several years ago (modeling the plans-built Q200). In this model, I get 67 mph CAS as the Vmin**, in ground effect.  When I increase the GW to 1400 pounds, I get a Vmin of 88 mph in ground effect. So that is probably as close an answer as you are going to get to your question about flying at 1400 pounds.

 

I usually fly between 1000 and 1100 pounds GW.  For those weights, the model produces a Vmin of 75 and 78 mph respectively.

 

I have also built a model that is customized to match my personal aircraft performance (Tri-Q2, with some minor aero mods). I get a Vmin of 70 mph at 1000 GW, and 74 mph at 1100 pounds. This is spot on with what I have measured in flight. At 1400 pounds, my plane would theoretically have a Vmin of 84 mph (I won’t be flight testing this!)

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

**I say Vmin because with a tandem wing configuration never really stalls, it just reaches a configuration where airspeed cannot get any lower and then the decent rate makes up for any energy deficit required to hold that airspeed…..but that is another story, for another time.

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 5:50 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

If the stall speed is 67mph at 800 lbs, what would it be at 1400 lbs?

 

The tail dragger LS1 canard is sized for the landing impact, not the in flight load.  

 

The factory Q200 had a 1100 lb gross weight limit.  Obviously they didn't think 1400 is safe.

 

Mike Q200 N3QP

 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:00 PM ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Q2/200/TriQ

 

Two questions(ok multi part, but two subjects): How many people have done a load test on their wing or canard? If so did you just use the cement bag method and how high did you test to. 

 

Anyone have a MTOW of 1400lbs or greater and is so what are you using? 

 

Thanks, Ryan

 




Re: Wing load testing and max weight

smeshno1@...
 

 That is true. Tulsa has over 130 main water breaks. We are located about 40 miles West of the city. Any city from 
here South have few preparations for polar winters. Never seen Houston with snow on the ground before. 
 I grew up (mostly) in Wichita Kansas and it is not uncommon to have severe Winters 
(at least then in the 1960's and 1970's). As you know it is all about preparing and building to protect systems. 

 On my small acre place we are on my own systems..mostly off grid. Even so the situation was not comfortable 
with winds and temps that low. My wife is from Russia so -25C is a walk in the park for her family overseas.    

Yesterday was -17F.... day after tommorrow is expected to be 60F!   

Bruce and the citizens in the panhandle area's have been suffering at this longer than we. 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:39 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight
 

Sounds like you could just set that prepreg outside these days, Vern 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:54 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 I don't have any contacts inside Nordam now Charlie but that may change as the year moves on..especially for Contractors. The biz-jet business is not as impacted by the current travel restrictions as commercial. 

 

If there is access to the out of cert prepreg I am wondering where it goes now. We were weekly running out of cert in the freezer..having to once again ask the supplier to sign off. Once we reached the third "re-cert" that was it as far as any of our suppliers were willing to accept. Manufacturing pissed and moaned at us but we were not about to re-stamp any after the third extension. You know how it is as M.E.   Rarely were we the good guys.

 

Needless to say..Gulfstream has every right to hammer any supplier pushing the numbers. The actual reason Nordam took the hit on the G500/G600 Nacelle and Cowling program was because they never fully had Gulfstream acceptance of what Inspection process was acceptable through delivery. Thermography was the "supposed to be" and then the fiasco began when that was shot down right in the middle of First Article (which was still in progress after 30 ship sets were delivered!!). 

 

 I am very sure that Nordam was set up...Gulfstream was very well aware of the investment that $200 Million in loans

bought at the Nordam NTR facility. Now Gulfstream owns all that nice composite equipment. I call Gulfstream the "Wal Mart" of bizjets

now due the tactics they pull..and they do earn that rep often.  

 

Anyway   

 

 Of course there is nothing wrong with the material at all for our (Experimental aviation) use..as long as it stayed in the freezer. They (Nordam) over the years had to reject millions in material due to the CYA mentality for certificated aircraft. I see no reason at all that this beam spar could not have major advantages. At an 18 foot (Q 2/200) span there would be no advantage to have a spar flex as a tube will.  Better the gear accept the landing load, but the beam would definitely nullify the current concerns. The beam interface to the skins alone would make this worthwhile to fab up.

 

Vern in frozen Oklahoma. (-15F last night, more snow on the way) 

 

 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 7:16 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

Jay,

 

Speaking of “I” beams. We designed one for our engineering class that we could build using simple tooling. We used out of date pre-preg that could not be used on weapon systems. This could be done with “OOA” out of autoclave pre-Impregnated materials that are available today. It is very similar to how the Voyager spars were manufactured in Ed’s garage.

 

 

3” X 3” X 36” carbon/ epoxy “I” beam Manufactured for 4 point bending load test.

 

 

We actually went beyond analytics in refining the beam and had to take a lot of material out in later beams to avoid destroying the test fixture. In my opinion an I-beam is a better option than a circular spar as a load carrying element. Shear loads are 1/10 th of cap loads.

 

One Sky Dog



On Feb 16, 2021, at 5:26 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:

Jay,

 

My main point I was trying to make is the spar can take more deflection than the glass shell without reaching failure. This puts the first failure as compressive buckling of the top glass skin. The energy released from the skin buckle and transfer of full load to to the spar may or may not fail the spar. Bear in mind this only occurs when you hit the ground too hard or go on off runway excursions.

 

I am only capable of doing a crude analysis but it confirmed to me why the Q skin bubble or dent happens. Slapping more glass on the problem area may just move the problem to somewhere else.

High today 54 F expected 70 F by weekend. Stay warm out there!

One Sky Dog

 

 



On Feb 15, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:



Not to put words in Charlie’s mouth, but I think I heard him say (when he was showing me a structural simulation of the LS1 canard on his computer) that he felt the weak link in the chain was the skin/foam sandwich forward of the tube spar and inboard but not too far from the fuselage. That seems to be the place where the delamination has happened on numerous aircraft, even where the canard did not break.

 

The official QAC line was that the tubular spar was required because of the thin profile of the LS1 would not allow enough flexural strength if it that shape of airfoil was laid up conventionally. I think a properly engineered I-beam spar (or two) would probably fill the bill, but no one has tested that idea to my knowledge. QAC probably looked a the tube spar as a way of ensuring that customers did not drift towards hand building Q200’s without buying kit components from them. I would not write that motivation off entirely.

 

So many more options exist now.  I think anything requiring an autoclave should be ruled out for the general public, as it is not a tool that is available to most. The best bet would be to find an enthusiastic, enterprising, young graduate student, who is good with composites analysis and solid works, and ask them to do some modeling of proven hand laid up carbon fiber spar configurations subjected to end loading (like the standard Q and Dfly configuration), combined with line loading that would simulate the fuselage shell wall loads. If it was proven by computer modeling, then you would only have to build one canard design for testing to failure.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 12:45 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 I couldn't recall if it was the Wing or Canard..thank you for the clarification, Jay.  Here is what Charlie and I both are

concerned about.. the Canard, especially in the MKI config, takes a beating in this design. Neither D-fly or Q2 have 

had the Canard tested (that we know of) and I cannot be certain of the load limits in my own aircraft. 

 

 So the airplane geek I was trained to be finds this situation unacceptable. Too many years in the factories worrying 

about "what if's!"   I am concerned we have had structural fails..thank goodness not to the point of 

augering in from 10,000 feet. There are indications of upper skin delam from the canard core..and crush of the core

leading to compression fails right where we expect these conditions to happen. The bond between the core and upper 

glass layup degrades over time...so the margin in safety to peak load will be reduced.

 

 So I have the question here.. I can build a fixture that can easily use my 1/2 ton Dodge truck to provide a stabilized test

fixture (the data plate on the truck indicates the mass we have to work with, also not a problem having certificated scales

weigh the vehicle).  How much in todays materials would a canard cost to build? No need to add finishes because these 

are not going flying..these are going to test to fail (if possible). I prefer testing the Dragonfly Canard for the reasons 

explained before. The M.E. within wants to test what is more likely of a successful build by the homebuilder in her/his

own Shop.  

 

We MIGHT be able to effectively tool for Q2 Spars and test those also. We would need to know the exact ply schedule,

finish, and resin used at QAC. What finish dry carbon fiber also. What tapes used?  A far superior part would be possible 

with pre-preg ribbon and the correct mandrel...but then the problem of autoclave and accurate cure arises. It might be

possible to correctly pre-preg fab the tapered tube Spars using internal inflated balloon methods and then cure the entire 

tool with the layup and mandrels in a controlled oven.

 

Village Idiot Vern        

     

 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:20 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

I think that Waddelow load tested his LS1 spar-less canard, but I do not know the limits. Maybe Bruce Crain has that information.

 

The test of the main wing at LVK was in 2008 and tested to a max of +4.4 G’s (2000 lb. of sandbags) with deflection of 10.5 inches on each wingtip, that returned to its original shape.

 

I agree with what Vern is saying. I only thought I would look up the data so I can correct what I said earlier about 18” of deflection. Was really 10.5”

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:36 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

 The only test was in the news letters. Q Canard was tested in the past with static to 1200 lbs (positive). 

Sand bags from the local Big Box home improvement center.  On release, the tested surface resumed 

original design config(Q2, MKI Anhedral if my memory is correct) 

 

 The point is, from all builders/owners in the newsletters or blogs, of yet no test of either Dragonfly or Rutan Q surfaces 

(Wing or Canard) have been performed to failure..so there is no definite known max load other than Finite Element work. 

 

 Here is one project I had a bit of a hand in

 

 

<image001.png>

 

 She went 150% in this photo (and did not break).  I've flown over the Atlantic in a 787-9 but the wings were 

not at this point of flex.  I am pretty sure if they were my wife would have been a bit more than worried since 

she was with me on that flight from Stockholm to Ft Lauderdale.  

 

 When fail is reached it is upper surface compression, most often beginning at shear surface bondline (contact) from 

the spar/ribs to IML of the upper surface layup. Failure happens almost instantly but the strain gauges tell the tale

afterword.

 

 In our case the question arises of what is the bond of the glass layup to the solid core foam doing?  The Dragonfly 

having a different spar method than the Rutan carbon tube, so that is an important factor also. Delam of the skins 

from the foam is what we aught be expecting. The flex of the resin/glass compared to the foams involved. 

 

 Big question, and now BOTH foam and resin glass are different than in the 80's. I have extra orange Q2 foam to 

build the test surfaces but then again.. we can't obtain that same material now. The goal is to use what we can get 

and perhaps "back test" to the older material so the "as built" materials properties are known as well.   

 

 One of my "wish list" projects is to get the time and materials together to build a set of test surfaces to go to failure

in both positive and negative G. I have not heard of any flutter issues with either structural design. 

Vne may need be exceeded to discover that (sarcasm on high!)       

 

  Vern in frozen Oklahoma (Feb 12) 

 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 10:22 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

Hi Mike and Ryan,

 

I plugged 800 pounds GW into the Q200 aerodynamic model that I created several years ago (modeling the plans-built Q200). In this model, I get 67 mph CAS as the Vmin**, in ground effect.  When I increase the GW to 1400 pounds, I get a Vmin of 88 mph in ground effect. So that is probably as close an answer as you are going to get to your question about flying at 1400 pounds.

 

I usually fly between 1000 and 1100 pounds GW.  For those weights, the model produces a Vmin of 75 and 78 mph respectively.

 

I have also built a model that is customized to match my personal aircraft performance (Tri-Q2, with some minor aero mods). I get a Vmin of 70 mph at 1000 GW, and 74 mph at 1100 pounds. This is spot on with what I have measured in flight. At 1400 pounds, my plane would theoretically have a Vmin of 84 mph (I won’t be flight testing this!)

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

**I say Vmin because with a tandem wing configuration never really stalls, it just reaches a configuration where airspeed cannot get any lower and then the decent rate makes up for any energy deficit required to hold that airspeed…..but that is another story, for another time.

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 5:50 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Wing load testing and max weight

 

If the stall speed is 67mph at 800 lbs, what would it be at 1400 lbs?

 

The tail dragger LS1 canard is sized for the landing impact, not the in flight load.  

 

The factory Q200 had a 1100 lb gross weight limit.  Obviously they didn't think 1400 is safe.

 

Mike Q200 N3QP

 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:00 PM ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Q2/200/TriQ

 

Two questions(ok multi part, but two subjects): How many people have done a load test on their wing or canard? If so did you just use the cement bag method and how high did you test to. 

 

Anyone have a MTOW of 1400lbs or greater and is so what are you using? 

 

Thanks, Ryan

 


Re: File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice

smeshno1@...
 

 Thank you Sam.  I'll be making a study of them late at night when no one is looking!!😉


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of main@Q-List.groups.io Notification <noreply@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:30 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] File /Canard - LS-1 designed by Larry Weishaar &amp; Jim Doyle/Weishaar-Doyle LS-1 Canard Plans Templates.jpg uploaded #file-notice
 

The following files have been uploaded to the Files area of the main@Q-List.groups.io group.

By: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>

1661 - 1680 of 53004