I agree with Paul. One possibly interesting note, aren't we G limited by the canard. I heard that the most G's we can pull is around 4. I've never tried to pull more than about 3 in the air (not

I would have thought that, on a Q2/Q200, the main wing would be the weakest part of the primary structure and would have to be properly load tested before exceeding 1100 lbs gross, especially going as

Hi Barry, email me off list at: HawkiDoug@... so I have your email. Let me know if you are ever in Omaha. Doug "Hawkeye" Humble A Sign Above www.asignabove.net Omaha NE N25974

IMHO Mark, you start with the 1100 gross number and thru your own flight test you determine what you airplanes gross weight is and document it. Of course you need to this systematically and

Greetings all. Some of you will recognize my name and some won't as I was a builder for a while and then had to sell my kit to afford changes in my life (getting married, buying a house, and having a

So it seems that there's a disagreement of sorts but no real answer on data on the Tri-Q200's gross weight. So I guess I'll have to list it as 1100 as the LS wing suggest. Mark

http://oklahomacity.craigslist.org/for/547912789.html I talked with John for about a half hour yesterday; project seems pretty nice. It's tough for him , because this is the death of a

Does anybody know the g limits of a q2? Thanks, Justin --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

wrote: because I are Doc, one of the good things abou this book: Composite Aircraft Design , by Martin Hollmann is the appendix. In which he gives the written programs for running the the formulas on

because I Doc, I see no reason why you cannot lay up your own spars, and you can make the decissions as to what the material may be. all the advice I can give is get a copy of: COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT

Make sure you do coupon testing to verify your material properties. Process variation makes huge differences in how strong and stiff your parts are. You cannot use manufactures data because their

Mountain States Fly-In, April 25-27, 2008 http://mountainstatesfly-in.com/ Pat

These planes are listed EXPERIMENTAL. If no one deviates from the plans, it is not experimenting, nor experimental. The changes should be done with adherence to good engineering practices, but these

Mark, True, but so what? Here are the options: Your point - it might be safe, but I cannot prove it. So, you assume it is safe. My point - until proven safe, assume it is unsafe. Stand in front of

Hi all, Again, Thanks for the replys. Please don't misunderstand me. Just because I think the spars are expensive, doesn't mean that I don't think they are worth it. Having built several aircraft and

I did not answer all of your statements. So, now I will. True. Petillo, and others, have flown their Q200 at 1350 lbs many times, so I would accept that as a safe operating weight for any TriQ - as

Stupid is as stupid does. However, the major stress point in Q2/Q200 operation is on the canard tips during a hard landing or crossing a ditch in an off field movement. For anyone who really wants to

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

Larry, I beg to differ. This is very bad advice indeed and I recommend in the strongest possible terms that it be completely ignored. One person acting irresponsibly is not justification for

Paul Buckley is right "the Waddelow canard with out the CF spar works" but only for the TriQ. I have around 200 hours with the Waddelow canard. I have loaded it to 1250+ lbs. It is working very