Date   

Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

I suggested a locking tailwheel about a year ago, but nobody seemed to think very much of the idea.
Allan F

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 19:27
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


Mike,

You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating:

> I would like to point out something I think people loose
> sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod
> allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the
> tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the
> plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed,
> and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The
> tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel.

Consider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection
before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to
airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending on
the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder
deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal
deflection.

A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined
with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat
(giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really
desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning
radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical
ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring
right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying
airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob?

Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to go
STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is
locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels.
The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional
control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some
steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the
tailwheel unlocked....

David J. Gall

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
> On Behalf Of Mike Perry
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:30 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
> I would like to point out something I think people loose
> sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod
> allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the
> tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the
> plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed,
> and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The
> tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel.
>
> (You could achieve the same thing using split cables and
> changing the lengths of the control horns on the rudder and
> tail wheel, but the bell crank is an easy place to change the
> relative travel.)
>
> I understand the tail wheels of some WW II fighters had very
> little travel, but I can't seem to document that right now.
> My opinion is that tail draggers that land at high speeds
> need tail wheels that are "desensitized"
> with a reduced pivot arc and tail wheel springs.
>
> I understand the Q-2 plans from QAC used a tail wheel with a
> wide pivot arc in order to negotiate tighter corners on
> airports. This design worked OK on the Quickie, which lands
> at a lower speed, but has been problematic on the Q-2 and
> Q-200. The 6-Pack has full pivoting tail wheel and
> differential brakes to allow you to negotiate tight corners,
> and a reduced pivot arc and springs to desensitize the tail
> wheel at high speeds.
>
> Jim, I think this is what you meant when you said: "With just
> splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate
> (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder." I just
> wanted to say it more clearly.
>
> Mike Perry
>
> At 06:33 PM 10/19/2006 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote:
>
>
> >Fellas,
> >
> >I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
> >before his first flight and would like to share some info.
> Even though
> >he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway,
> I found it
> >very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight either with
> >rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind was
> about 12K -
> >10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no bellcrank but has split
> >the cables internally to rudder and tail wheel and has a
> modified dual
> >differential finger brake system).
> >Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
> >response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
> >problem!
> >
> >Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has
> no way to
> >differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
> rudder. He's
> >installed a modified dual finger brake that has a single stick that
> >slides sideways to apply pressure to one master cylinder or
> the other
> >or both. That is not good because its way to sensitive and
> hard to get
> >positive results from known inputs.
> >Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the
> brake and not
> >the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How many
> >serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or heel
> >brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail dragger
> >and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
> things going
> >on to be doing this additional "dance".
> >
> >This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods
> installed are
> >really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
> life of me
> >understand why anyone would want to do anything different.
> Yet we see
> >it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very difficult
> time handling
> >their planes initially and often crack them up or have an
> incident even
> >before the first flight. Because you didn't invent it,
> doesn't mean you
> >can't copy it! The situation with Wes; here's a very
> intellignet fella
> >sitting on a field with sucessuful Q's all around, yet he
> chooses to do
> >his own thing. Why?
> >To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't
> have a clear
> >undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
> >What? I do not understand this.
> >
> >This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the
> middle of
> >LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a
> different route,
> >what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
> isolated
> >and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so simple
> and brace
> >yourself fellas, we're in for more!
> >
> >These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
> >simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still
> smacking up
> >their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen
> who don't
> >want to get hurt.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
> >crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
> >Bingo! There's a reason.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

David J. Gall
 

Mike,

You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating:

I would like to point out something I think people loose
sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod
allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the
tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the
plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed,
and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The
tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel.
Consider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection
before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to
airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending on
the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder
deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal
deflection.

A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined
with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat
(giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really
desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning
radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical
ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring
right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying
airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob?

Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to go
STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is
locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels.
The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional
control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some
steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the
tailwheel unlocked....


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Mike Perry
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:30 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

I would like to point out something I think people loose
sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod
allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the
tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the
plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed,
and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The
tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel.

(You could achieve the same thing using split cables and
changing the lengths of the control horns on the rudder and
tail wheel, but the bell crank is an easy place to change the
relative travel.)

I understand the tail wheels of some WW II fighters had very
little travel, but I can't seem to document that right now.
My opinion is that tail draggers that land at high speeds
need tail wheels that are "desensitized"
with a reduced pivot arc and tail wheel springs.

I understand the Q-2 plans from QAC used a tail wheel with a
wide pivot arc in order to negotiate tighter corners on
airports. This design worked OK on the Quickie, which lands
at a lower speed, but has been problematic on the Q-2 and
Q-200. The 6-Pack has full pivoting tail wheel and
differential brakes to allow you to negotiate tight corners,
and a reduced pivot arc and springs to desensitize the tail
wheel at high speeds.

Jim, I think this is what you meant when you said: "With just
splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate
(detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder." I just
wanted to say it more clearly.

Mike Perry

At 06:33 PM 10/19/2006 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote:


Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info.
Even though
he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway,
I found it
very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight either with
rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind was
about 12K -
10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no bellcrank but has split
the cables internally to rudder and tail wheel and has a
modified dual
differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has
no way to
differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's
installed a modified dual finger brake that has a single stick that
slides sideways to apply pressure to one master cylinder or
the other
or both. That is not good because its way to sensitive and
hard to get
positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the
brake and not
the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How many
serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or heel
brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail dragger
and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going
on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods
installed are
really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me
understand why anyone would want to do anything different.
Yet we see
it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very difficult
time handling
their planes initially and often crack them up or have an
incident even
before the first flight. Because you didn't invent it,
doesn't mean you
can't copy it! The situation with Wes; here's a very
intellignet fella
sitting on a field with sucessuful Q's all around, yet he
chooses to do
his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't
have a clear
undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the
middle of
LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a
different route,
what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated
and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so simple
and brace
yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still
smacking up
their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen
who don't
want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

I would like to point out something I think people loose sight of regarding
the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod allows the builder to reduce the
pivot arc (travel) of the tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That
makes the plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed, and
thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The tail wheel springs
also desensitize the tail wheel.

(You could achieve the same thing using split cables and changing the
lengths of the control horns on the rudder and tail wheel, but the bell
crank is an easy place to change the relative travel.)

I understand the tail wheels of some WW II fighters had very little travel,
but I can't seem to document that right now. My opinion is that tail
draggers that land at high speeds need tail wheels that are "desensitized"
with a reduced pivot arc and tail wheel springs.

I understand the Q-2 plans from QAC used a tail wheel with a wide pivot arc
in order to negotiate tighter corners on airports. This design worked OK
on the Quickie, which lands at a lower speed, but has been problematic on
the Q-2 and Q-200. The 6-Pack has full pivoting tail wheel and
differential brakes to allow you to negotiate tight corners, and a reduced
pivot arc and springs to desensitize the tail wheel at high speeds.

Jim, I think this is what you meant when you said: "With just splitting the
cables, Wes has no way to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel
from the rudder." I just wanted to say it more clearly.

Mike Perry

At 06:33 PM 10/19/2006 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote:


Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.

----------


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Terry Crouch is the resident Q1 Wizard. If its been done he knows the
good and bad about it.

Regards,
Jim Patillo


-- In Q-LIST@..., "FR Jones" <seabeevet@...> wrote:

Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me a
little.
So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I have no
problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ring
attached
to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or system of
which you can send me plans?

On 10/19/06, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:


Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.



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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
 

Jones,

Do you have hydraulic or cable brakes?

Ryan
--- In Q-LIST@..., "FR Jones" <seabeevet@...> wrote:

Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me
a little.
So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I
have no
problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ring
attached
to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or
system of
which you can send me plans?

On 10/19/06, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:


Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200
Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the
runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My
immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix
the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no
way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way
to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake
and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing!
How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods
installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a
very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack
them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation
with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing.
Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it -
NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the
middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their
own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still
smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen
who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.



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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Allan,

I bought my Quickie Kit in October 1981 from the factory. It had a
single pull lever that when applied set both brakes. I found this to
be totally unacceptable in any kind of crosswind. I did not like the
idea but toyed with dual finger brakes not near as close to fininshing
as Bob Malachek, Sam Hoskins, Paul Fisher and Tom Moore. So I delayed
finishing the brakes knowing some how I was going to install toe
brakes. Then I met Bob Farnam and he showed me the fix. Bob had
already designed and installed toe brakes so I basically copied his
set up. Our toe brake pedal geometry varied a little but both planes
handled basically the same....................tame. I didn't do
David's alignment becaue the plane was already a "pussycat" . I know
for a fact from Sam and others that the alignment worked wonders on
many planes.

Later Brad Olson, Jeff Rudledge and Mark Summers installed toe brakes
with small variations but basically the same. I can say............
tame my good buddy Sam because it's so.

Now should we collabrate and make a Q that can kick Klaus' ass?

Regards,

JP



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote:

Hi Jim. I understand that originally the Q2 had differential brakes,
& that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning
faulty in your opinion?
Regards
Allan Farr
Q2

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 11:28
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



Dave,

I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or
that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better
idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers?
Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q
world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not
the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake
modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so
many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it.

I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need
three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't
run across any three handed pilots lately.

If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I
said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or
approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights.
He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential
finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter
intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left
to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so
much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really
easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly!

I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours
on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either
one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the
runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame?

Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't
care to express it.

Regards,

JP

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@> wrote:
>
> You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a
better
> idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds
like
> Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull
lever.
> Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three
> hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and
realizes
> you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane
to
> show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
> getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming
up
> with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to
install
> the proven six pack.
>
> I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to
first
> flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
> argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked
pretty
> hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner
reflexor in a
> fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result
and that
> is what really counts.
>
> To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and
$'s on
> something that has already been solved and proven to be
successful? Do
> what works and go fly your plane.
>
> Dave Richardson
> Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Patillo
> Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Cc:
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

FR Jones <seabeevet@...>
 

Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me a little.
So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I have no
problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ring attached
to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or system of
which you can send me plans?

On 10/19/06, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:


Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.



Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

My two cents worth, where I disagree with my good friend, Jim.

1. I do use differential finger brakes, with great success. They are
positioned right behind the throttle. I let go of the throttle to use the
brakes. You can see my installation here:
http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/brakes01.jpg

2. I do have rudder splitters. See the installation here:
http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/aircraftdetail/tailcone01.jpg

Each cable, splitting off to the rudder bellcrank, has a turnbuckle for
adjustment.

3. I do not have the intermediate bellcrank.

I believe the single biggest ground handling improvement that can be made is
correcting the wheel alignment, per Gall. I made a blog entry about it:
http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/

Having said that, I think it's fine for people to install the 6-pack. A
couple of years ago I had the opportunity to taxi Jim's plane. I thought it
felt a lot like mine, though maybe a little "softer" on the rudder pedals
due to the tail wheel cable springs. (I bought a set, but never got around
to installing them).

Jim's point is well taken, if you build like a successful model, you should
have the same results as that plane. However, "tame" is a word that is not
in my Quickie vocabularly.

Sam Hoskins

Murpysburger, IL



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)




Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Allan Farr <afarr@...>
 

Hi Jim. I understand that originally the Q2 had differential brakes, & that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning faulty in your opinion?
Regards
Allan Farr
Q2

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 11:28
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)



Dave,

I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or
that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better
idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers?
Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q
world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not
the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake
modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so
many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it.

I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need
three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't
run across any three handed pilots lately.

If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I
said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or
approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights.
He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential
finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter
intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left
to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so
much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really
easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly!

I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours
on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either
one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the
runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame?

Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't
care to express it.

Regards,

JP

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@...> wrote:
>
> You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a
better
> idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds
like
> Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull
lever.
> Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three
> hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and
realizes
> you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane
to
> show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
> getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming
up
> with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to
install
> the proven six pack.
>
> I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to
first
> flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
> argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked
pretty
> hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner
reflexor in a
> fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result
and that
> is what really counts.
>
> To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and
$'s on
> something that has already been solved and proven to be
successful? Do
> what works and go fly your plane.
>
> Dave Richardson
> Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Patillo
> Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Cc:
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Dave,

I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or
that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better
idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers?
Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q
world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not
the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake
modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so
many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it.

I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need
three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't
run across any three handed pilots lately.

If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I
said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or
approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights.
He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential
finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter
intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left
to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so
much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really
easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly!

I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours
on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either
one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the
runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame?

Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't
care to express it.

Regards,

JP





--- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@...> wrote:

You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a
better
idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds
like
Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull
lever.
Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three
hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and
realizes
you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane
to
show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming
up
with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to
install
the proven six pack.

I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to
first
flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked
pretty
hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner
reflexor in a
fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result
and that
is what really counts.

To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and
$'s on
something that has already been solved and proven to be
successful? Do
what works and go fly your plane.

Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Patillo
Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)





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


Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Dave Richardson <dave@...>
 

You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a better
idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds like
Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull lever.
Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three
hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and realizes
you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane to
show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is
getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming up
with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to install
the proven six pack.

I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to first
flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than
argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked pretty
hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner reflexor in a
fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result and that
is what really counts.

To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and $'s on
something that has already been solved and proven to be successful? Do
what works and go fly your plane.

Dave Richardson
Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Patillo
Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc:
Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)


Re: Taxiing before first flight.

Paul Buckley
 

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.


A nosewheel ?? :-)


Re: Flight characteristics questions

Paul Buckley
 

Hi Tim

As a matter of interest, all aircraft become increasingly pitch sensitive as the C of G travels aft, that is why there is an aft limit.
There is a safety factor built in, of course, but, generally speaking, to be behind that limit is dangerous.
The further forward the C of G is, the more pitch stable the aircraft is, at the expense of elevator authority, which is why there is a forward limit.

Would I be correct in thinking that you do not have any sparrow strainers installed?

Regards

Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England.

TriQ200....still building.

----- Original Message -----
From: q2fun
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:27 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flight characteristics questions


Hi All,

I have some questions about the flight characteristics of the Q-2.
Pitch sensitivity. With an after c/g my Q2 seams pitch sensitive.
My Q2 has the LS1 canard, Revmaster 65hp, tail dragger. Is it
normal to get more pitch sensitive the more aft the C/G gets?

Rudder to control bank. My rudder does not do anything for bank.
If the wing is down 5 degrees and you use the rudder to bring it up,
all that happens is the plane will yaw and the bank may even get
steeper. Is that a normal characteristic of the Q design?

With an increase in airspeed above 150 mph indicated the airplane
wants to pitch down and farther increase airspeed/pitch down
harder. Is this normal? Sparrow strainers to small for this
airspeed? I have the standard pitch trim system.

I have been flying my Q since April and now have 62 hours in it. It
is a joy to blast around the pattern and it is even a joy to put gas
in it after a long cross county. It is just a little too slow in
cruise 130 kts.

Thank You All.
Tim Bryant
KUNV
N86TB






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 14/10/2006


Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

Jim Patillo
 

Fellas,

I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday
before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even
though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I
found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight
either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind
was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no
bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail
wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system).
Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate
response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the
problem!

Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way
to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the
rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a
single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master
cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to
sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs.
Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and
not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How
many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or
heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail
dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many
things going on to be doing this additional "dance".

This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed
are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the
life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything
different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very
difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them
up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you
didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with
Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with
sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why?
To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a
clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT!
What? I do not understand this.

This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle
of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different
route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own,
isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so
simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more!

These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to
simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking
up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who
don't want to get hurt.

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe
crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line.
Bingo! There's a reason.


Re: Flight characteristics questions

Letempt, Jeffrey MR <jeffrey.letempt@...>
 

It is interesting to discover differences in the Q and Dragonfly as these
discussions come up. The Dragonfly's rudder is very effective, in fact the
rudder is way more effective than the ailerons in rolling my Dragonfly....of
course the Dragonfly probably has twice the rudder area. As the airspeed
builds in the Dragonfly the aileron controls forces get very heavy, this is
a problem that the Q does not seem to have. Lots of Dragonfly's have
aileron servo tabs to reduce the aileron stick pressure.

Like Jim's experience, my Dragonfly is more pitch sensitive with an aft CG.
I have adjustable sparrow strainers on my Dragonfly (GU canard) and a simple
2 spring elevator trim system. If I run out of up elevator trim I need to
put more AOA in the sparrow strainers. The faster the airspeed the more the
elevator wants to come up. Using a digital level; with the upper surface of
the elevator at 45 degrees down (not travel, just the static position) the
upper surface of my sparrow strainers are at 38 degrees down. A 2-3 degree
adjustment of the sparrow strainers makes a significant difference, in fact
I have been able to correct for a slight roll tendency with one sparrow
strainer that is set ever so slightly different that the other one.

This sparrow strainer setting works for my current cruise airspeed of about
140 MPH. My elevator trim system does not have a wide adjustment range and
I have found that the 5-7 MPH airspeed difference with my wheel pants
requires a sparrow strainer adjustment. I can adjust for hands-off with the
reflexor if I run out of elevator trim, but the elevator will not be in
trail. I can either install larger springs, install a different trim system
that has more travel, or make minor sparrow strainer adjustments when I make
aerodynamic adjustments that will effect my cruise airspeed. I will
probably opt for the minor sparrow strainer adjustments, but a trim system
with more range is the right answer (and there are even plans in an old
Dragonfly newsletter)....maybe I am getting lazy.

I know very little of this information could be directly applied to a Q, but
you never know. Obviously you should listen to what the experienced Q guys
have to say. Good luck.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: 10/16/2006 7:12 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Flight characteristics questions


TIM, FIRST CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR 62 HOURS FLIGHT TIME IN A Q.
YOU'VE JOINED A UNIQUE CLUB.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com,
"q2fun" <q2fun@...> wrote:

Hi All,

I have some questions about the flight characteristics of the Q-
2.
Pitch sensitivity. With an after c/g my Q2 seams pitch
sensitive.
My Q2 has the LS1 canard, Revmaster 65hp, tail dragger. Is it
normal to get more pitch sensitive the more aft the C/G gets?
ABSOLUTELY! FAR AFT CG IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE IN THIS PLANE.

Rudder to control bank. My rudder does not do anything for bank.
If the wing is down 5 degrees and you use the rudder to bring it
up,
all that happens is the plane will yaw and the bank may even get
steeper. Is that a normal characteristic of the Q design?
MAYBE. IN LEVEL FLIGHT, PUSHING THE RUDDER WILL DEFINATELY YAW THE
TAIL BUT I HAVEN'T NOTICE THE BANK INCREASING. IN SLIGHT BANKS MINE
WILL RECOVER USING THE RUDDER ONLY. I THINK THE SMALL RUDDER ON
THESE PLANES DOES A GOOD JOB BUT RECOVERING FROM A BANK SOLELY USING
RUDDER .......NOT SO GOOD. I WILL CHECK IT OUT WHEN I FLY AGAIN.

With an increase in airspeed above 150 mph indicated the airplane
wants to pitch down and farther increase airspeed/pitch down
harder. Is this normal? Sparrow strainers to small for this
airspeed? I have the standard pitch trim system.
I CRUISED MY Q200 (LS1)SATURDAY FROM 130 TO 185K AND DID NOT NOTICE
ANY TUCKING OR PITCHING. I ALSO HAVE A STANDARD TRIM SYSTEM. MAYBE
YOUR STRAINERS ARE INSTALLED INCORRECT.

I have been flying my Q since April and now have 62 hours in it.
It
is a joy to blast around the pattern and it is even a joy to put
gas
in it after a long cross county. It is just a little too slow in
cruise 130 kts.
YOU CAN FIX THAT! TIM WE SEE 160-165K CRUISE STANDARD WITH PUMPED
0200'S (TAIL DRAGGER VERSION). JUST COSTS A LITTLE $$$$$$$.

REGARDS,
JIM PATILLO

Thank You All.
Tim Bryant
KUNV
N86TB


Re: Headset

BARRY AMANDA STEARNS <stearns2559@...>
 

Or buy a David Clark or Telex and not have to worry about it breaking....not even talking about the one I have for sale, but we have seen so many light speed headsets broke at the shop that I don't care for them anymore...yes the service support is great, but I'd buy one that didn't need service for the same money. Also, I haven't seen this new 30 something Lightspeed, but I hope it isn't as big and stiff as the ones I have worked on. I like lighter softer headsets that don't squeeze my brains out to stop the noise from getting in the ear. Just me 2 cents worth.

Barry

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo<mailto:logistics_engineering@...>
To: Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:39 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Headset


Ron, quit being such a damn tight wad and just purchase a new 30 3G,
there are only $585.00! That will give you what you want and it will
be new. You can't beat Lightspeed for service warranty and back up.
Loosen up with that dough, you can't take it with you and you sure
as hell don't want to give it all to your kids.

Hope all is well with your flight testing. How many hours now?

Regards,
Jim P

--- In Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...>, "Ron Triano" <rondefly@...> wrote:
>
> James, do they have the cell plugin and what is the amount of noise
> canceling ? If so, let me know how much they offer.
>
>
>
> Ron Triano
>
> South Lake Tahoe, CA
>
> The Sonerai is finished and flying
>
> finishing the Q200
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...> [mailto:Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...>] On
Behalf Of
> James Cartwright
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:22 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...<mailto:Q-LIST@...>
> Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset
>
>
>
> Ron,
> I have a couple of Lightspeed headsets I was going to send in for
the 30 3g
> units. Maybe I can set you up for the same price they are going to
give me
> for a trade in. These units are only 2 years old. They are the
QFRXCc
> Headset.
>
> James
> 615-293-3134
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Triano
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset
>
> Thanks Phil for the offer, from everything I hear about the
lightspeed type
> that probably is the way I will go however what is a Marv Golden
one?
>
> Ron Triano
>
> South Lake Tahoe, CA
>
> Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
> [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf
> Of
> britmcman@aol. <mailto:britmcman%40aol.com> com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:15 PM
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
> Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset
>
> Ron:
>
> If you like, I could lend you a Marv Golden Logo'd version of the
Lightspeed
>
> QFR Cross Country C. It has a cell phone interface and is a pretty
nice
> unit. Or a 30 3 G Lightspeed (also with cell phone interface). You
can get
> an
> idea about what some of the Lightspeed products are all about. I
trust you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: Flight characteristics questions

MartinErni@...
 

Jeff,
Not all Q's are like the one described that would not lift a wing with
rudder. My plane easily lifts a wing with rudder. When I want to fold a map I
get on the rudder so my hands are free. A few years back, before I put my
pitch trim switch on the stick, I flew it for 30 minutes without touching the
stick using pitch trim and rudder. That was on an average summer day with
average turbulence. I could have done it all day but 30 minutes gave me the info I
wanted.
I don't know if not having anhedral on the canard makes a difference or
not. Maybe anhedral on the canard partially cancels the dihedral of the wing.
It's amazing how many differences we find in the same design with different
builders.

Earnest
Triq200 960 hrs


Re: Headset

Jim Patillo
 

Ron, quit being such a damn tight wad and just purchase a new 30 3G,
there are only $585.00! That will give you what you want and it will
be new. You can't beat Lightspeed for service warranty and back up.
Loosen up with that dough, you can't take it with you and you sure
as hell don't want to give it all to your kids.

Hope all is well with your flight testing. How many hours now?

Regards,
Jim P




--- In Q-LIST@..., "Ron Triano" <rondefly@...> wrote:

James, do they have the cell plugin and what is the amount of noise
canceling ? If so, let me know how much they offer.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
James Cartwright
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset



Ron,
I have a couple of Lightspeed headsets I was going to send in for
the 30 3g
units. Maybe I can set you up for the same price they are going to
give me
for a trade in. These units are only 2 years old. They are the
QFRXCc
Headset.

James
615-293-3134

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Triano
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset

Thanks Phil for the offer, from everything I hear about the
lightspeed type
that probably is the way I will go however what is a Marv Golden
one?

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf
Of
britmcman@aol. <mailto:britmcman%40aol.com> com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset

Ron:

If you like, I could lend you a Marv Golden Logo'd version of the
Lightspeed

QFR Cross Country C. It has a cell phone interface and is a pretty
nice
unit. Or a 30 3 G Lightspeed (also with cell phone interface). You
can get
an
idea about what some of the Lightspeed products are all about. I
trust you.

Cheers,

Phil



[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]


Re: Headset

Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
 

James, do they have the cell plugin and what is the amount of noise
canceling ? If so, let me know how much they offer.



Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

The Sonerai is finished and flying

finishing the Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
James Cartwright
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset



Ron,
I have a couple of Lightspeed headsets I was going to send in for the 30 3g
units. Maybe I can set you up for the same price they are going to give me
for a trade in. These units are only 2 years old. They are the QFRXCc
Headset.

James
615-293-3134

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Triano
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset

Thanks Phil for the offer, from everything I hear about the lightspeed type
that probably is the way I will go however what is a Marv Golden one?

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
britmcman@aol. <mailto:britmcman%40aol.com> com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset

Ron:

If you like, I could lend you a Marv Golden Logo'd version of the Lightspeed

QFR Cross Country C. It has a cell phone interface and is a pretty nice
unit. Or a 30 3 G Lightspeed (also with cell phone interface). You can get
an
idea about what some of the Lightspeed products are all about. I trust you.

Cheers,

Phil


Re: Headset

James Cartwright <james.cartwright@...>
 

Ron,
I have a couple of Lightspeed headsets I was going to send in for the 30 3g units. Maybe I can set you up for the same price they are going to give me for a trade in. These units are only 2 years old. They are the QFRXCc Headset.


James
615-293-3134

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Triano
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Headset


Thanks Phil for the offer, from everything I hear about the lightspeed type
that probably is the way I will go however what is a Marv Golden one?

Ron Triano

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sonerai there and Q200 gettin there

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
britmcman@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:15 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Headset

Ron:

If you like, I could lend you a Marv Golden Logo'd version of the Lightspeed

QFR Cross Country C. It has a cell phone interface and is a pretty nice
unit. Or a 30 3 G Lightspeed (also with cell phone interface). You can get
an
idea about what some of the Lightspeed products are all about. I trust you.

Cheers,

Phil