|
Re: Nose Gear Shimmy
mailbox@hughes.net <wingnut@...>
John,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
You are correct the Tri Q200 plans did not call for a shimmy dampener system. However if you plan on installing one let me know how it works. My Tri Q200 uses a caster nose wheel without a shimmy dampener system. I'm close to taxi testing and hope to fine out how well the little nose gear holds up. I'lll bench mark off of your success. Mark
----Original Message----
From: johntenhave@... Date: 04/11/2007 17:11 To: Subj: [Q-LIST] Re: Nose Gear Shimmy Ok, if those are the top three reasons, I am guessing that the nose gear does not have a shimmy damper? John --- In Q-LIST@..., "mailbox@..." <wingnut@...> wrote: take off speeds for the Tri-Q200. What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmyproblem. While there are several things that will cause the nose wheel to shimmy, I’m only going to talk about the top three. 1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft useNitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing. An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds) A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from yourvalve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire. B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water,ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can cause an out of balance condition. can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.) Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct this type of condition. B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method andreplacement of the tire is also recommended.
|
|
|
|
Re: Nose Gear Shimmy
John ten
Ok,
if those are the top three reasons, I am guessing that the nose gear does not have a shimmy damper? John --- In Q-LIST@..., "mailbox@..." <wingnut@...> wrote: take off speeds for the Tri-Q200. What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmyproblem. While there are several things that will cause the nose wheel to shimmy, I’m only going to talk about the top three. 1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft useNitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing. An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds) A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from yourvalve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire. B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water,ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can cause an out of balance condition. can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.) Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct this type of condition. B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method andreplacement of the tire is also recommended.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quickie Taxi Testing
Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
Thanks Jim.
Joseph Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote: Peter, I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one too and am here to rebut yours. The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane. Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago. I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take advise from those you trust. To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down to it, its your ass on the line, period. Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the planes that kept us out of trouble. Regards, Jim Patillo --- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...> wrote: ground handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practicedepending on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.just before touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot ofstability in crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.Behalf Of Joseph M Snowteach MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCAjust after takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canardand elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it islanding. Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solocross country.brakes and decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheelfirmly planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel willincrease controlability.landings. However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"conditions for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first thirdof a wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxito the ramp and celebrate!appreciate your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.divergent taxi during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?side slip with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitudeaxis of the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in thisdo the side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneouslyneutralize rudder. Will that work?finally flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flighttraining when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusualflight attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and knowexactly what to do without delay or freaking out.with correct practice.finally taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger isstable and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it isunstable like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and anydivergence is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain thedeflection. the divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need agood load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel forbest grip. It is also very springy.On Behalf Ofto do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on theend of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, powercontrol and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, Iwill experiment with divergence issues.sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happensvery occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick backhard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of therunway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch theend of the runway no matter what.recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.On Behalf Ofand flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons upnot down. On Behalf Ofbottom surfaces.equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better withreflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration andperformance. Josephdo seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I didnot like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is goingto be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the groundrun.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasionsI have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higherbut visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but ithappens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handlingreflex ground handling is good again.On Behalf Ofon three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlierresponse: 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power tofly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed doesthe pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without thepitch buck? On Behalf Of
|
|
|
|
Re: Quickie Taxi Testing
Peter,
I have over 1,000 takeoff and landings in my Q200 in all kinds of conditions including rain, snow, heat, high, altitude and wind and just like the opinion you provide and Dwyer agrees with, I have one too and am here to rebut yours. The testing you are encouraging is debatable and potentially dangerous. There's plenty to concentrate on before first flights besides trying to ground loop and possibly overturn your airplane. Not smart! We all know too well what can happen when that occurs. If and when someone gets in that position (apparently you both have several times?) its simply a matter of understanding when you stomp on a rudder and or brake you will in fact ground loop. Just because fire will burn you doesn't mean you have to light your clothes up to understand the concept of heat. This idea is like one of yours older ones to load test (and possibly overstress) the canard, for what? It was done a 1,000 times on spars at the factory a long time ago. I appreciate the past work you've done toward our cause even though sometimes I have to shake my head in total confusion. This airplane is simple to build and fly, if you follow instructions and take advise from those you trust. To all you fellas finishing and testing your airplanes, again, beware of who you are getting information from . When it finally comes down to it, its your ass on the line, period. Further the Q airplane handles crosswinds better than any tail dragger I've ever flown. Case in point, was in 2004 when Brad and I were returning from Oshkosh and landed at Wendover, Ut with 38K gusting to 42K in quartering crosswinds (only because we had no other options). It was his first time landing in heavy crosswinds and he did just fine. I was our stupidity that got us there but it was the planes that kept us out of trouble. Regards, Jim Patillo --- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...> wrote: ground handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practicedepending on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO.just before touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot ofstability in crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast.Behalf Of Joseph M Snowteach MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCAjust after takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canardand elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it islanding. Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solocross country.brakes and decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheelfirmly planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel willincrease controlability.landings. However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct"conditions for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first thirdof a wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxito the ramp and celebrate!appreciate your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit.divergent taxi during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea?side slip with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitudeaxis of the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in thisdo the side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneouslyneutralize rudder. Will that work?finally flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flighttraining when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusualflight attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and knowexactly what to do without delay or freaking out.with correct practice.finally taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger isstable and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it isunstable like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and anydivergence is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain thedeflection. the divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need agood load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel forbest grip. It is also very springy.On Behalf Ofto do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on theend of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, powercontrol and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, Iwill experiment with divergence issues.sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery.Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happensvery occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick backhard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of therunway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch theend of the runway no matter what.recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.On Behalf Ofand flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons upnot down. On Behalf Ofbottom surfaces.equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better withreflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration andperformance. Josephdo seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I didnot like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is goingto be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the groundrun.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasionsI have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higherbut visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but ithappens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handlingreflex ground handling is good again.On Behalf Ofon three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlierresponse: 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power tofly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed doesthe pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without thepitch buck? On Behalf Of
|
|
|
|
Nose Gear Shimmy
mailbox@hughes.net <wingnut@...>
Tri Q200 Family,
This is to the gentleman that wrote in asking for information on take off speeds for the Tri-Q200. What you described in your E-mail is a typical Nose Wheel Shimmy problem. While there are several things that will cause the nose wheel to shimmy, I’m only going to talk about the top three. 1.) Water or moisture in the tire. Military aircraft use Nitrogen (N2) to eliminate this problem but you can mitigate water intrusion into your tires by bleeding your compressor before servicing your tires. This will lower the moisture content in your compressor and mitigate distribution of water into your tires during servicing. An ounce of water (H2O) can throw the balance of the tire off at high speeds. (1 Gal = 8 Pounds) A: Deflate your tire, if you see a mist or vapor coming from your valve stem you probably had water intrusion in your tire. B: Deflate and service your tire several times to remove the water, ensure that you have bled your compressor first. This will also help push any trapped air between the inner tube and the tire which can cause an out of balance condition. 2.) The tire is out-of- round. A: Raise the nose of the aircraft and spin the nose tire. (You can use a wrench or handle to see if the nose tire is tracking.) Usually an inch of out-of-round condition is too much and will cause a high speed vibration. The tire will have to be replaced to correct this type of condition. B: Flat spotting can also be detected by using this method and replacement of the tire is also recommended. 3.) Loose or missing hardware. A: A good visual inspection of the attaching hardware and bearings. I hope this help you find your problem. Please feel free to call me if I can be of any further assistance. Mark 501-366-7899
|
|
|
|
Re: Ground testing a Q
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Mike,
I won't ask you if you don't ask me. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 9:53 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] Ground testing a Q Also, if a wheel pant collapses in a low speed ground loop then at least your at the home airport where you can drag it back to the hangar and work on it. I can say that a Q200 built to plans can take some really severe side loads (have tested that). In the 3 or so ground loops I've been a part of the Q seems to turn 90 degrees to the left or right and skid to a stop. Don't ask me how I know that... Mike Q200 Peter Harris wrote: Joseph,what to do without delay or freaking out.unstable like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and anydivergence is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain thedeflection. grip. It is also very springy.[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snowthe landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the end ofthe canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power controlfast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerkingthe runway no matter what.recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure.Behalf Offlares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up notdown. Behalf Ofto 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position.Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexorperformance. Josephseem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did notlike the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to beBehalf Ofthree occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response:onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does thepitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitchbuck? Behalf Of
|
|
|
|
Re: Quickie Taxi Testing
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Joseph,
I suggested the divergent exercise because the landing and initial ground handling is likely to be different from normal fast taxi practice depending on a lot of factors and the better prepared is the way to go. JMHO. The cross wind landing normally works out fine when I straighten just before touch down and once the canard is stalled the Q has a lot of stability in crosswind on the ground. The flare and touch down happen fast. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 10:37 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] RE:Quickie Taxi Testing Peter, Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We teach MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA just after takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard and elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first landing. Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo cross country. During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the brakes and decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel firmly planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will increase controlability. I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind landings. However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct" technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind conditions for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third of a wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi to the ramp and celebrate! So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do appreciate your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit. How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional divergent taxi during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea? Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a side slip with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude axis of the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking, do the side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously neutralize rudder. Will that work? Joseph Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph, The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before finally flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight training when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual flight attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know exactly what to do without delay or freaking out. There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided with correct practice. The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless finally taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is stable and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is unstable like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any divergence is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the deflection. The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate the divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a good load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for best grip. It is also very springy. Joseph you are going to enjoy this. Cheers Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Peter, I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how to do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the end of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power control and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I will experiment with divergence issues. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens very occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back hard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the runway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the end of the runway no matter what. I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure. (If a Tri Q the above does not apply.) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off and flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up not down. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the bottom surfaces. I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position. Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and performance. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph, Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there do seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did not like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground run.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions I have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher but visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it happens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with reflex ground handling is good again. Are you flying Joseph.? (Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post on three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response: Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up, 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to fly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does the pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitch buck? Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: What troubles Joseph ? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] Test Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list? Joseph
|
|
|
|
Re: Quickie Taxi Testing
Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
Peter,
Recovery from stalls is a secondary objective of stall training. We teach MCA and stalls because with MCA the aircraft passes through MCA just after takeoff and just before touchdown and with stalls the wings/canard and elevators must be stalled for the aircraft to quit flying. So, it is appropriate that I should determine pitch buck prior to the first landing. Unusual attitudes is something I teach after solo and before solo cross country. During increasingly fast taxi, I agree that I should lay off the brakes and decelerate strait ahead with stick back to keep the tail wheel firmly planted for control. I agree that a pneumatic tail wheel will increase controlability. I do teach management of landing problems prior to solo, i.e. high approaches, low approaches, gusty, turbulent landings, crosswind landings. However, for first solo I insure calm winds and emphasize "correct" technique prior to sign off. You can bet I will choose calm wind conditions for my first flight. I will get it on the ground in the first third of a wide, long runway. I will decelerate all the way to the end, taxi to the ramp and celebrate! So, at this point I still do not see the need for intentional taxi divergence or ground loops during taxi testing. However, I do appreciate your recommendation and I understand its purpose and merit. How about a vote: How many Q drivers practiced intentional divergent taxi during taxi testing? How many Q drivers think this is a good idea? Now, I have a question.. During a crosswind landing, I assume a side slip with alerons nto the wind and opposite rudder to keep the longitude axis of the a/c lined up parallel to the runway. If I touchdown in this configuration, I would expect some divergence... So I am thinking, do the side slip until just prior to touchdown and simultaneously neutralize rudder. Will that work? Joseph Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...> wrote: Joseph, The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before finally flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight training when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual flight attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know exactly what to do without delay or freaking out. There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided with correct practice. The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless finally taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is stable and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is unstable like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any divergence is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the deflection. The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate the divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a good load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for best grip. It is also very springy. Joseph you are going to enjoy this. Cheers Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Peter, I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how to do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the end of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power control and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I will experiment with divergence issues. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens very occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back hard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the runway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the end of the runway no matter what. I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure. (If a Tri Q the above does not apply.) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off and flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up not down. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the bottom surfaces. I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position. Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and performance. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph, Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there do seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did not like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground run.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions I have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher but visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it happens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with reflex ground handling is good again. Are you flying Joseph.? (Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post on three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response: Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up, 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to fly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does the pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitch buck? Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: What troubles Joseph ? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] Test Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list? Joseph
|
|
|
|
Ground testing a Q
Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
Also, if a wheel pant collapses in a low speed ground loop then at least your at the home airport where you can drag it back to the hangar and work on it. I can say that a Q200 built to plans can take some really severe side loads (have tested that). In the 3 or so ground loops I've been a part of the Q seems to turn 90 degrees to the left or right and skid to a stop. Don't ask me how I know that...
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Mike Q200 Peter Harris wrote:
Joseph,
|
|
|
|
Re: Test
Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
Joseph & Peter, your subject line needs to be changed to an appropriate topic heading so people can find this thread in the archives. Thanks!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Doug "Hawkeye" Humble A Sign Above www.asignabove.net Omaha NE N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph M Snow To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:26 PM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Peter, I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how to do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the end of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power control and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I will experiment with divergence issues. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...> wrote: Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens very occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back hard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the runway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the end of the runway no matter what. I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure. (If a Tri Q the above does not apply.) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off and flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up not down. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the bottom surfaces. I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position. Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and performance. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph, Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there do seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did not like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground run.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions I have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher but visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it happens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with reflex ground handling is good again. Are you flying Joseph.? (Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post on three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response: Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up, 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to fly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does the pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitch buck? Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: What troubles Joseph ? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] Test Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list? Joseph
|
|
|
|
Re: Test
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Joseph,
The reason that I recommend the ground divergence practice before finally flying the Q dragger is similar to the practice we get in flight training when we need to learn how to recover from the stall and unusual flight attitudes. Then if an incident happens we are prepared and know exactly what to do without delay or freaking out. There have been many ground handling issues which can be avoided with correct practice. The initial ground runs may give a false sense of security unless finally taken to the divergence limits .While accelerating the Q dragger is stable and there should be no problems at all, but when decelerating it is unstable like any other tail dragger as CG is behind the main gear and any divergence is likely to continue as the inertia force works to maintain the deflection. The use of brakes at this time will set up a couple and accelerate the divergence and rudder is less effective at this speed, so we need a good load on the tail wheel and I recommend a pneumatic tail wheel for best grip. It is also very springy. Joseph you are going to enjoy this. Cheers Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 6:26 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Peter, I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how to do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the end of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power control and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I will experiment with divergence issues. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens very occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back hard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the runway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the end of the runway no matter what. I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure. (If a Tri Q the above does not apply.) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off and flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up not down. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the bottom surfaces. I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position. Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and performance. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph, Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there do seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did not like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground run.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions I have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher but visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it happens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with reflex ground handling is good again. Are you flying Joseph.? (Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post on three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response: Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up, 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to fly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does the pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitch buck? Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: What troubles Joseph ? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] Test Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list? Joseph
|
|
|
|
Re: Test
Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
Peter,
I have been thinking about this. I prefer to practice learning how to do the landing right. I realize the Q is springy with the wheels on the end of the canard and that PIO'S must be avoided with elevator control, power control and visual references. Later in the testing period or even later, I will experiment with divergence issues. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...> wrote: Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several sessions fast taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerking the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens very occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back hard and that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the runway and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the end of the runway no matter what. I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no recovery and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure. (If a Tri Q the above does not apply.) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off and flares better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up not down. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the bottom surfaces. I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is equal to 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position. Several Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexor down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and performance. Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: Joseph, Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there do seem to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did not like the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to be limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground run.I am using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions I have used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher but visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it happens quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with reflex ground handling is good again. Are you flying Joseph.? (Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also) Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post on three occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response: Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up, 70 kts over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to fly onto the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does the pitch buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitch buck? Joseph Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com> wrote: What troubles Joseph ? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Joseph M Snow Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] Test Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list? Joseph
|
|
|
|
Re: TRI-Q 200 lift off speed
Greg Z.
I have right at 1000 hrs on the original nose gear and have had no problems. I position my reflesor as to minimize weight on nose gear for take off and landing. I can hold the nose off with no problem. GregZ 89RZ
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: MartinErni@... To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] TRI-Q 200 lift off speed Bob, I normally lift off at about 80 MPH. The bouncing you describe sounds like you have the old nose gear which isn't nearly strong enough for an O200. The stronger gear will eliminate this. The bouncing will eventually cause metal fatigue and nose gear failure. The old gear will not take much in the way of a hard landing either. If I am guessing right you are risking a lot on a known problem. Sorry if I am wrong. Earnest ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
|
|
|
|
Re: TRI-Q 200 lift off speed
kr2flyer1986
Thanks for the info. I am running the new nose gear.
Bob Clark MartinErni@... wrote: Bob, I normally lift off at about 80 MPH. The bouncing you describe sounds like you have the old nose gear which isn't nearly strong enough for an O200. The stronger gear will eliminate this. The bouncing will eventually cause metal fatigue and nose gear failure. The old gear will not take much in the way of a hard landing either. If I am guessing right you are risking a lot on a known problem. Sorry if I am wrong. Earnest ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. --------------------------------- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
|
|
|
|
TRI-Q 200 lift off speed
kr2flyer1986
Just wanting to know the liftoff speed of you TRI-Q 200 pilots.
My plane is now at the airport and have started taxi testing. All is going good to this point. Have had it upto 70 MPH with an UNCALIBRATED airspeed indicator, at which point the nose wheel begins to get light and start bouncing up and down. Presumed pitch bucking. Tracks true with good rudder control. Bob Clark Ankeny Iowa --------------------------------- Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
|
|
|
|
Re: TRI-Q 200 lift off speed
MartinErni@...
Bob,
I normally lift off at about 80 MPH. The bouncing you describe sounds like you have the old nose gear which isn't nearly strong enough for an O200. The stronger gear will eliminate this. The bouncing will eventually cause metal fatigue and nose gear failure. The old gear will not take much in the way of a hard landing either. If I am guessing right you are risking a lot on a known problem. Sorry if I am wrong. Earnest ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
|
|
|
|
Re: Spring Flyin
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Thanks Mike. I modified my trim to left hand operation with a throttle cable
control and probably not getting as much spring as normal but the force required was at leat 2 or 3 lbs greater than the spring. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2007 8:05 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Spring Flyin Hi Peter, I kind giggled cause holding force on the stick of any kind for 4 hours is not going to happen. In cruise with full up ailerons I can easily trim out the stick forces which in this case is forward on the elevator, maybe 5 lbs? Mike Q200 N3QP Peter Harris wrote: Mike,[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyerdecrease the drag there also. Does the 4 knot increase occur with full reflexor up?do you deploy it? What is you pitch buck speed? What airspeed do you carry<mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> <http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos>ng@... <mailto:ng%40msn.com> > wrote:M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote:Joseph, yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos> <http://www.quickiebuilders.org> uilders.org> uilders.orgyahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos I will compileresponses and make them available to the list. I have some responses uilders.org> uilders.org
|
|
|
|
Re: Spring Flyin
Joseph,
I would not recommend "jerking the controls back and forth or purposely ground looping your plane. I've never done it in 800 hours flying time and see no need to do that. It just puts more stress on the tires, wheels, wheel pants and canard..... For what? If your plane works correctly there is no need. Reards, Jim P. --- In Q-LIST@..., Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote: However, undecided about Jean. might be beneficial to you since you are ready to fly.pilot and pax. IMO the reflexor came after the problem. The Q airplanewas designed to fly without a reflexor. Because of individual mis-found (on their first taxi series) that something wasn't right (eithertail was comming up first or nose was comming up first, W&B wasincorrect) and used the reflexor as a bandage rather than fixing the problem.built right. Your airplane should be able to fly just fine without aapproach and landing to improve visibility over the nose and improve lift atwith experience or just different piloting skills.control. just(Then maybe a little time in a Lancair 4P for speed control - takekidding) Jean?off or landing with pilot and pax aboard. The plane runs down the
|
|
|
|
Re: Test
Allan Farr <afarr@...>
I'll probably try an intentional groundloop when I get to that stage however I am slightly concerned about stressing the ac. I read in "Fibreglass Boat Repair Manual" by Allan H. Vaitses (35 years in the industry and now a fibreglass boat surveyor) that any stress in excess of 25% - 33% of the ultimate limits does irreversible accumulative damage to the fibreglass. I understand that our ac (if built right) have a strength safety factor of 3 (3 x stronger than they have to be?). I presume that means that the ac would have to be stressed to the max allowable (4.5g) to reach 33% of its ultimate limits. However if that high stress level is reached, it gradually lowers the safety factor so that over the years the ac is probably getting weaker. Therefore it will exceed 33% of its ultimate limit more and more often as the safety factor gets eroded.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Allan Farr
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dwyer To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 11:37 Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Test I would like to second Peters advice. Mike Q200 N3QP 1000+ hours. Peter Harris wrote: > Joseph if you have a Q dragger, before you fly, spend several sessions fast > taxi and when confident deliberately upset and practice recovery. Jerking > the stick back and forth may set up an oscillation which happens very > occasionally on landing. The fix for me is to hold the stick back hard and > that damps the oscillation. Try taking your eyes off the end of the runway > and I will bet you lose control due to PIO. Be sure to watch the end of the > runway no matter what. > > I would recommend also try a ground loop at say 20KTS. There is no recovery > and normally no damage except to the ego but inspect for sure. > > (If a Tri Q the above does not apply.) > > Peter > > > > _____ > > From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of > Joseph M Snow > Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:59 AM > To: Q-LIST@... > Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test > > > > OOPs! I got that just opposit. Thanks for pointing that out. > > Joseph > > Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> > bigpond.com> wrote: > Joseph note that I am saying that my Q rotates better at take off and flares > better landing and steers better on roll out with the aelerons up not down. > > Peter > > _____ > > From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf > Of > Joseph M Snow > Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 7:16 AM > To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test > > No, I am not yet flying. Hopefully in June. Currently painting the bottom > surfaces. > I have heard pitchbuck speeds range from 64-80 mph (your 55 kts is equal to > 64 mph). The variations are functions of gross wt. and cg position. Several > Q dirvers agree with your assessment that the Q lands better with reflexor > down. Thanks for your description of landing configuration and performance. > Joseph > > Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> > bigpond.com> wrote: > Joseph, > > Pitch buck for my Q happens at 55 KTS. I have no belly board, there do seem > to be some various opinions about the merit of a belly board. I did not like > the idea of a board opening forward. In any case air speed is going to be > limited by the stall speed, but the board could reduce the ground run.I am > using a small amount of power on final approach. On a few occasions I have > used more power and flown on back of the curve with the nose higher but > visibility is less.The final flare is a mush I suppose, but it happens > quickly. I never could understand all the talk about ground handling > problems until I tried landing with the aelerons neutral. Now with reflex > ground handling is good again. > > Are you flying Joseph.? > > (Sometimes I get delays through Yahoo also) > > Peter > > _____ > > From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf > Of > Joseph M Snow > Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:57 PM > To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Test > > Ok, you seemed to get through. I have tried to respond to you post on three > occasions. It does not show up in my Inbox. Here is my earlier response: > > Very interesting! So, on final your configuration is reflexor up, 70 kts > over the fence. Are you using a bellyboard? Are you using power to fly onto > the runway (power controls altitude at MCA)? At what airspeed does the pitch > buck occur in this configuration? Are you "mushing" without the pitch buck? > > Joseph > > Peter Harris <peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> > bigpond.com> wrote: > What troubles Joseph ? > > Peter > > _____ > > From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf > Of > Joseph M Snow > Sent: Sunday, 8 April 2007 2:38 PM > To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > Subject: [Q-LIST] Test > > Is anyone having trouble with replies on the Q-list? > > Joseph > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quickie Builders Association WEB site > http://www.quickiebuilders.org > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >
|
|
|
|
Re: Spring Flyin
Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
Hi Peter,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I kind giggled cause holding force on the stick of any kind for 4 hours is not going to happen. In cruise with full up ailerons I can easily trim out the stick forces which in this case is forward on the elevator, maybe 5 lbs? Mike Q200 N3QP Peter Harris wrote:
Mike,
|
|
|