Date   

Re: Nose Gear Shimmy

mailbox@hughes.net <wingnut@...>
 

John,

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:




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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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:




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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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:

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

Jim Patillo
 

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:

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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,

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



























Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickiebuilders.org> uilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links






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...
Mike Q200


Peter Harris 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
















Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links






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!

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

-----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,

With full up aelerons have you got enough trim springs to trim for level
flight or do you need to hold the nose down with the stick?

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Mike Dwyer
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:25 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Spring Flyin



Best speed on my plane is with full (QCA limits) up ailerons. I
reported my max speed a while ago complete with baro and temps. It's in
the archive somewhere, probably under flight test... Say 200+ mph.
Mike Q200 N3QP

Joseph M Snow wrote:

Mike,

I had not thought about the effect on the canard when moving the reflexor
up on the main wing. Decreasing the canard's angle of attack would
decrease
the drag there also. Does the 4 knot increase occur with full reflexor up?
What is your max cruise airspeed with reflexor full up?

Thanks,

Joseph






w

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@tampabay. <mailto:mdwyer%40tampabay.rr.com> rr.com>
wrote:

Hey Joe,
One thing you wrote lead me to believe you have a slight
misunderstanding of the Reflexer.
This Q airplane is being lifted by two wings. If you put the ailerons
up, thus reducing lift on the rear wing then you have to go forward on
the stick thus reducing lift on the front wing (otherwise you'd be in a
fast climb). So in effect you are reducing the drag on both wings by
reflexing the rear ailerons up. I get 4mph for free by reflexing the
ailerons up in cruise.
Mike Q200 N3QP

Joseph M Snow wrote:


Hi Jim,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the invitation of a ride in your Q200
at Jean, Nv. Does this mean you have dual controlls, i.e. dual rudder
pedals, brakes, throttle? I remember seeing the center stick when I was at
Livermore.

Interesting description of reflexor use. Does this mean you set the
reflexor at neutral for takeoff and landing? Did you make some kind of
modification to the canard or wing incidence to achieve this setting? I
understand some Q200 drivers use some down reflexor during approach and
landing to improve visibility over the nose and improve lift at approach
speeds. I think it is neat to be able to reduce main wing drag during high
cruise speeds with up reflexor. Do you have the belly board? If so, when
do
you deploy it? What is you pitch buck speed? What airspeed do you carry
"over the fence"?

Joseph

Jim Patillo <logistics_engineeri
<mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com>
ng@... <mailto:ng%40msn.com> > wrote:

Joseph,

The guys at Livermore recommend you get some time in an American
Yankee for pitch sensitivity and a Citabria for tail wheel control.
(Then maybe a little time in a Lancair 4P for speed control - just
kidding)

That works well for a transition to the Q200.

I set my plane up to be flown with no reflexor required during take
off or landing with pilot and pax aboard. The plane runs down the
runway in neutral stick position and levitates (not rotate)at the
appropriate speed. I use reflexor in flight to offset various CG
configurations. The reflexor can also be used in flight to gain a
couple of knots in flight.

Sorry I wasn't around Livermore when you were here in December. I
would have been more than happy to give you a ride, maybe in Jean?

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, Joseph
M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote:


Hi Darrell,

I have already configured my Q with dual controls; but the


aircraft has not flown its 40 hours. The problem is that I would
like to fly in another Q200 with dual controls for some hands on
experience prior to starting the flight testing phase.



I have two rides (much appreciated) and some data on a/c


configuration during various phases of flight, e.g. T.O., cruise,
pitch buck, traffic pattern, final approach, and touchdown. The
Q200's in which I have ridden did not have dual controls. As a
passenger, I can do turns, climbs, descents, and pitch bucks while
the pilot manages the throttle, rudder, reflexor, belly board. And I
can observe the the takeoff and landing. With a dual controlled
Q200, I could "ride the controls" to feel the pilot's input during
flight phases, and so gain valuable experience in the management of
my a/c. While instructing my students, I have them ride the controls
so that they will gain tactile experience along with visual,
auditory, kinesetic input during the instruction.



Further, I could use some more data as there are differences of


opinion on reflexor positioning as well as diffenceces in aircraft.
I have posted a chart in the Q-list Photo section which contains a
chart of the data desired. If anyone would be willing to complete
this chart (for their a/c: Q, Q2,Q2xxTri-Q2, etc. and mail it to
me (19101 South Lakeshore
Blvd, Euclid, Ohio 44119). See album CorvairQxx
http://ph.groups. <http://ph.groups.
<http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos>
yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos>
yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos I will compile

responses and make them available to the list. I have some responses
already from the Emporia, Ka. flyin last fall and from Livermore,
Ca. in December.



It has been recommended that I acquire taildragger experience. I


am arranging a taildragger endorsement in a cub. An EAA aquaintence
has a Texas taildragger (C150 with 180hp, controllable pitch prop,
conventional gear) in which I can get some dual experience. I have
found a Pitts resource in Pa. ($217/hr.!!). I am looking for other
possibilities.



Thanks,
Joseph Snow, CFII
CorvairQ2xx
N240JS












Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickieb
<http://www.quickiebuilders.org> uilders.org> uilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links













Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickiebuilders.org>
uilders.org> uilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links














Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickiebuilders.org> uilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: Spring Flyin

Jim Patillo
 

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:

Jim,

Thanks for the information. I am always interested in a ride.
However, undecided about Jean.

Joseph

Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
Hi Jim,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the invitation of a ride in your
Q200 at Jean, Nv. Does this mean you have dual controlls, i.e. dual
rudder pedals, brakes, throttle?

******No I have dual rudder pedals only. I jsut thought a ride
might
be beneficial to you since you are ready to fly.

Interesting description of reflexor use. Does this mean you set the
reflexor at neutral for takeoff and landing?

*********Yes, the reflexor is set to neutral with pilot only or
pilot
and pax. IMO the reflexor came after the problem. The Q airplane
was
designed to fly without a reflexor. Because of individual mis-
interpertation of the plans, people got into trouble when they
found
(on their first taxi series) that something wasn't right (either
tail
was comming up first or nose was comming up first, W&B was
incorrect)
and used the reflexor as a bandage rather than fixing the problem.

*********A Q that depends on "addons" for standard flight isn't
built
right. Your airplane should be able to fly just fine without a
relfexor. Having said that, I enjoy the abilities my reflexor
provides as stated in previous posts. Its a very good "options"
device.

Did you make some kind of modification to the canard or wing
incidence to achieve this setting?

No. Standard Q200 plans.

I understand some Q200 drivers use some down reflexor during
approach
and landing to improve visibility over the nose and improve lift at
approach speeds. I think it is neat to be able to reduce main wing
drag during high cruise speeds with up reflexor.

*******I've tried that method, may work for them but doesn't make
much difference to me.

Do you have the belly board? If so, when do you deploy it?

*********Yes. Deployed on downwind or short final under 115K.

What is you pitch buck speed?

********63-66 MPH

What airspeed do you carry "over the fence"?

********85-90 mph depending on loading fo airplane.

**********Further, I rarely look at the end fo the runway. I'm more
interested how far down the runway I plant the tailwheel. My visual
clue is the left main to the ground. I don't know if this comes
with
experience or just different piloting skills.

After all, ITS ALL EXPERIMENTAL. Good luck.

Regards,
Jim Patillo


Joseph

Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@> wrote:

Joseph,

The guys at Livermore recommend you get some time in an American
Yankee for pitch sensitivity and a Citabria for tail wheel
control.
(Then maybe a little time in a Lancair 4P for speed control -
just
kidding)

That works well for a transition to the Q200.

I set my plane up to be flown with no reflexor required during
take
off or landing with pilot and pax aboard. The plane runs down the
runway in neutral stick position and levitates (not rotate)at the
appropriate speed. I use reflexor in flight to offset various CG
configurations. The reflexor can also be used in flight to gain a
couple of knots in flight.

Sorry I wasn't around Livermore when you were here in December. I
would have been more than happy to give you a ride, maybe in
Jean?

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200


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.
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,
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,

With full up aelerons have you got enough trim springs to trim for level
flight or do you need to hold the nose down with the stick?

Peter


_____
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Dwyer
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2007 8:25 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Spring Flyin


Best speed on my plane is with full (QCA limits) up ailerons. I reported my max speed a while ago complete with baro and temps. It's in the archive somewhere, probably under flight test... Say 200+ mph.
Mike Q200 N3QP

Joseph M Snow wrote:

Mike,

I had not thought about the effect on the canard when moving the reflexor
up on the main wing. Decreasing the canard's angle of attack would decrease
the drag there also. Does the 4 knot increase occur with full reflexor up?
What is your max cruise airspeed with reflexor full up?

Thanks,

Joseph






w

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@tampabay. <mailto:mdwyer%40tampabay.rr.com> rr.com>
wrote:

Hey Joe,
One thing you wrote lead me to believe you have a slight misunderstanding of the Reflexer.
This Q airplane is being lifted by two wings. If you put the ailerons up, thus reducing lift on the rear wing then you have to go forward on the stick thus reducing lift on the front wing (otherwise you'd be in a fast climb). So in effect you are reducing the drag on both wings by reflexing the rear ailerons up. I get 4mph for free by reflexing the ailerons up in cruise.
Mike Q200 N3QP

Joseph M Snow wrote:


Hi Jim,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the invitation of a ride in your Q200
at Jean, Nv. Does this mean you have dual controlls, i.e. dual rudder
pedals, brakes, throttle? I remember seeing the center stick when I was at
Livermore.

Interesting description of reflexor use. Does this mean you set the
reflexor at neutral for takeoff and landing? Did you make some kind of
modification to the canard or wing incidence to achieve this setting? I
understand some Q200 drivers use some down reflexor during approach and
landing to improve visibility over the nose and improve lift at approach
speeds. I think it is neat to be able to reduce main wing drag during high
cruise speeds with up reflexor. Do you have the belly board? If so, when do
you deploy it? What is you pitch buck speed? What airspeed do you carry
"over the fence"?

Joseph

Jim Patillo <logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com>
ng@...> wrote:

Joseph,

The guys at Livermore recommend you get some time in an American Yankee for pitch sensitivity and a Citabria for tail wheel control.
(Then maybe a little time in a Lancair 4P for speed control - just kidding)
That works well for a transition to the Q200.
I set my plane up to be flown with no reflexor required during take off or landing with pilot and pax aboard. The plane runs down the runway in neutral stick position and levitates (not rotate)at the appropriate speed. I use reflexor in flight to offset various CG configurations. The reflexor can also be used in flight to gain a couple of knots in flight.

Sorry I wasn't around Livermore when you were here in December. I would have been more than happy to give you a ride, maybe in Jean?
Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, Joseph
M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote:


Hi Darrell,

I have already configured my Q with dual controls; but the

aircraft has not flown its 40 hours. The problem is that I would like to fly in another Q200 with dual controls for some hands on experience prior to starting the flight testing phase.


I have two rides (much appreciated) and some data on a/c

configuration during various phases of flight, e.g. T.O., cruise, pitch buck, traffic pattern, final approach, and touchdown. The Q200's in which I have ridden did not have dual controls. As a passenger, I can do turns, climbs, descents, and pitch bucks while the pilot manages the throttle, rudder, reflexor, belly board. And I can observe the the takeoff and landing. With a dual controlled Q200, I could "ride the controls" to feel the pilot's input during flight phases, and so gain valuable experience in the management of my a/c. While instructing my students, I have them ride the controls so that they will gain tactile experience along with visual, auditory, kinesetic input during the instruction.



Further, I could use some more data as there are differences of

opinion on reflexor positioning as well as diffenceces in aircraft. I have posted a chart in the Q-list Photo section which contains a chart of the data desired. If anyone would be willing to complete this chart (for their a/c: Q, Q2,Q2xxTri-Q2, etc. and mail it to me (19101 South Lakeshore Blvd, Euclid, Ohio 44119). See album CorvairQxx http://ph.groups. <http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos>
yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/photos I will compile
responses and make them available to the list. I have some responses already from the Emporia, Ka. flyin last fall and from Livermore, Ca. in December.



It has been recommended that I acquire taildragger experience. I

am arranging a taildragger endorsement in a cub. An EAA aquaintence has a Texas taildragger (C150 with 180hp, controllable pitch prop, conventional gear) in which I can get some dual experience. I have found a Pitts resource in Pa. ($217/hr.!!). I am looking for other possibilities.



Thanks,
Joseph Snow, CFII
CorvairQ2xx
N240JS










Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickiebuilders.org> uilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links












Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickieb <http://www.quickiebuilders.org> uilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links












Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links