Re: the Official Runway Distance thread
In a message dated 10/23/2006 8:18:13 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
britmcman@... writes: So I have attempted to use the terms "Up" and "Down" to describe the effect on the rear of the aircraft. Cheer, Phil Clear Thanks, Charlie
|
|
Re: Tri Q nebie
Austin <austin.rowlands@...>
Hi Guys,
I'll confirm that as Richard says it sits under the main gear and does open at the front like a scoop. Austin
|
|
Re: Tri Q nebie
Hi Gerard,
If it is the tail dragger, the speed brake is under the tank , whereas I think that Austins is under the main gear if it is like Farrys. It opens at the front as well, like a big airscoop. It would be interesting to note if any of the other Tri Q guys have one, and how much difference it actually makes. Could be I need to do it after all, if anyone has the plan for that version. Richard Thomson Weston s Mare , UK Tri-Q G-BMFN ( 21 yrs since 1st reg. this month ) Viggen@...
|
|
Re: Reflexor
Dave Richardson <dave@...>
Sorry, Bob, for the memory misfire.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Dave [Bob Farnam] Actually, my Q picks up speed when I raise the elevators a few degrees (pitchdown) above 0 degrees and retrim level with the reflexor.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Farnam Sent: Tue 10/24/2006 1:26 PM To: Q-LIST@... Cc: Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Reflexor
|
|
Re: Reflexor
Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of Dave Richardson Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:53 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Reflexor Hi Peter, I'm going to respond to the questions up here instead of inserting items again but I'll put numbers by the items I'm answering. 1) I have my reflexor set to 0 (faired in) to +8 degrees (up). I have never been able to use the full +8 setting. I was only able to get close the 0 when at gross and with the elevator faired in. 2) Exactly. My point is that even though it is a secondary add on and not a typical control from the standpoint of flying other airplanes, it has become my primary trim control with the elevator trim being used just to optimize for speed and to add to the adjust for CG change via a passenger. 3) Actually I was in an elevator up - reflexor up condition when I trimmed for elevator faired in / lower reflexor angle and picked up the speed. It was better than calculating true airspeed because I could actually see it on the airspeed indicator. I believe I recall Bob Farnum saying he saw speed increases by lowering his reflexor below the faired in position. Perhaps Bob can comment where his elevators have to be set in level flight to see his result. [Bob Farnam] Actually, my Q picks up speed when I raise the elevators a few degrees (pitchdown) above 0 degrees and retrim level with the reflexor. I'm going to guess there is more to this mystery than can be revealed from one fixed setting. 4 Recent Activity a.. 2New Members b.. 2New Photos Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS a.. Aviation maintenance b.. Aviation maintenance training c.. Aviation training d.. Aviation art e.. Aviation maintenance schools New web site? Drive traffic now. Get your business on Yahoo! search. Y! GeoCities Share Your Resume Show off your talent and skills. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .
|
|
Re: the Official Runway Distance thread
Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
I pull the reflex lever back and this causes the trailing edges of the
ailerons to cross neutral and rise above the trailing edges of the main wing. ---------------------------------------- Phil, Are you saying your reflexor can lower your ailerons below the trailing edge of wing as in a flaps position. Ryan --- In Q-LIST@..., britmcman@... wrote: the position of the trailing edge in relation with the wing's trialingedge. So I will reiterate in an attempt not to call the reflex position eitherup" or "down" since I may have it reversed in terms of how the sailplanefolks call it.down because the main wing is reflexed so that the ailerons trailing edges are downmain wing and causes the tail to raise / nose to lower.want to happen is for the main wing to get airborn for any reason whatsoeverother than upon adding full power. The main wing has been in a state where thewing had the highest lift potential as described in the previous paragraph.Now that the plane is a tricycle, I pull the reflex lever back and thiscauses the trailing edges of the ailerons to cross neutral and rise above thetrailing edges of the main wing. I'm pretty happy that the main wing is nowconfigured to have the least amount of lift potential and I am less concernedabout wind gusts causing that portion of the plane from coming up. The tailwheel is down for the rollout.effect on the rear of the aircraft.
|
|
Re: Reflexor
Dave Richardson <dave@...>
Hi Peter,
I'm going to respond to the questions up here instead of inserting items again but I'll put numbers by the items I'm answering. 1) I have my reflexor set to 0 (faired in) to +8 degrees (up). I have never been able to use the full +8 setting. I was only able to get close the 0 when at gross and with the elevator faired in. 2) Exactly. My point is that even though it is a secondary add on and not a typical control from the standpoint of flying other airplanes, it has become my primary trim control with the elevator trim being used just to optimize for speed and to add to the adjust for CG change via a passenger. 3) Actually I was in an elevator up - reflexor up condition when I trimmed for elevator faired in / lower reflexor angle and picked up the speed. It was better than calculating true airspeed because I could actually see it on the airspeed indicator. I believe I recall Bob Farnum saying he saw speed increases by lowering his reflexor below the faired in position. Perhaps Bob can comment where his elevators have to be set in level flight to see his result. I'm going to guess there is more to this mystery than can be revealed from one fixed setting. 4) The Falkner reflexor plans are in Quicktalk #17. I'm not aware of a link. I reviewed the plans again and the glass work that Bob suggests actually has the reflexor being mounted into the front surface of the center upright so that is consistent with what you have direct access to via the seatback cutouts. I do recall now that I also mounted mine in from the front but I was able to remove the tail to gain access. The glass work is basically foxing and glassing in a phenolic ring into the center upright and a cable support near the reflexor to afix the end of the vernier cable. The rest is routing the cable and assembling the pieces of the reflexor together with two bolts. It is really one of those beautifully simple designs that is far more elegant than QAC's reflexor. Dave Dave, Thanks for your helpful and detailed post re the reflexor. I do understand that the reflexor and the elevator can be "tuned" for level flight by moving both in the same direction and I have seen how much the view changes with the aelerons flush. I have a couple of questions and comments: 1) When set down are your aelerons flush? In the case below you saw a small increase in airspeed when the reflexor was adjusted for a flush elevator but most report that a small elevator up gives more airspeed and that makes more sense to me as both the canard and the wing would be unloaded.? This is another case where there are different reports about the effect and use of the reflexor and I think it should be clarified. < I used the elevator trim to fair in the elevator and readjusted the reflexor to fly level again. Two things happened and they were both good. I picked up about 2-3 mph and the nose was lower relative to the horizon. It was so much lower I thought I was in a dive until I crosschecked my instruments. > <I know there can be installation variations in the way the wing and canard are mounted relative to the fueslage as well as many other factors, but for me, letting the plane fly faired in on both wings seems to give pretty good results. I'm guessing there is less drag when things are faired in. > I have never felt too much reflexed up with a passenger Dave, but need to use the aeleron (roll) trim. Right now I am still in the process of finding the best settings for the new installation <Do you feel like you have too much reflexed up when you fly with a passenger and the CG is more aft? > Yes but my aelerons are already reflexed up (fixed) for this condition <The other nice thing the reflexor does is it allows me to take the pressure off the elevator after I raise the nose up and reduce power abeam the numbers. By doing this the elevator is faired in again but I'm descending at 500' fpm or what ever descent rate I'm working with based on the throttle setting. It also helps me lock in or maintain the airspeed I'm using because I can raise the nose to trim to a particular airspeed and the elevators are still faired in. By doing this I end up on short final with the elevators pretty close to faired in and I have full travel available yet I have an established descent rate at a selected airspeed that the reflexor let me control. > I agree with your idea that the plans elevator trim adjuster is hard to reach and I have replaced it with a cable adjuster fitted also in the left quadrant 2) What it amounts to Dave is that the reflexor is a second pitch trim device , an alternative additional to the elevator trim which I am using as originally planned but it has the advantage that it can be used in conjunction with the elevator to alter the pitch of the hull. . < So, to me, the reflexor is a primary trim control I use now on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and landings. I have it installed in my lower left quadrent along with the throttle. It is easier and less disruptive to use vs. reaching across to the center lower area for the elevator trim, too. I was told to use a vernier to control the reflexor and I'm glad I listened. I can make both quick changes and small adjustments with ease. It helps me correct for weight changes. It helps me lock in airspeeds during climbs and descents. It also helps me trim for best speed. On take off in my Tri-Q, it helps me regulate how much pressure I'll need to pull back on the stick to rotate depending on weight. Actually, I think the only time I don't use the reflexor is when I'm taxiing. <grin>[Peter Harris] Tou love it ! 3) I started to make a reflexer a few years ago and quit because of the access problem and when I realized that aileron up was best for landing and also best for fast cruise, but your report is different from others re cruise settings . Dave Have you tried for fast cruise with elevator and aelerons both up? I think you should find it goes faster ?. <Installing the Falkner inflight adjustable reflexor would be much less work than you think and would be far easier to reset than what you go through for your ground adjustable version of the reflexor right now. You could be done with most of the glass work in a weekend. Just make sure you set it up so moving the control forward lowers the ailerons and pulling the control aft raises the ailerons. That way the control moves the same way you move your elevators and you won't confuse which direction you need to apply the reflexor. > 4) Is there a link to the Falkner plans? I will look into it again if it can be done without the saw job. Thanks Dave, Peter
|
|
Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics
wesisberg <wes@...>
I've been experimenting with graduated-effectiveness since Jim rated
57RM's taxi a 5. I'm targetting toe-travel for the runway and leg-travel for taxiway, so I have a clear rule for staying out of trouble on the runway. For my toes/legs, it came out to about 21 and 35 degrees pedal rotation, aiming for 10-12 degrees max runway turn, (probably too high) and the 30-degree tailwheel detente. I've tried pulleys on the pedal to make the cable travel 1:n with rotation; the effect at the rudder horn is to increase the angular speed at large displacements, enabling me to detune the lower displacements for the runway. That worked nicely, but it didn't get me the turns I wanted at taxi. So then I tried increasing radius. I couldn't figure out a good way to make a true increasing-radius spiral, so I instead made a large pulley (4.25" radius) but mounted only a 75-degree arc on a 2.25" pedal center, resulting in 2.25 to 3.0" radius, to get the target 22/35 degree rotation. (Works, but bulkhead interference.) (Re: the suggestion to put the cable attach forward on the pedal: resulted in even more pull on the other pedal - e.g., a 30-degree push could result in a 40+-degree pull. For me, my off/pull leg was knocking the panel, which was distracting. Doing it at the bellcrank would sort this out.) Testing soon... Wes --- In Q-LIST@..., "Bob Farnam" <bfarnam@...> wrote: Might make a good winter project.Behalf Of David J. Gallshape of the letter 'K' with the angled legs pointing forward. The rudder pedalcables connect to the angled legs, but the rudder and tailwheel cablesconnect to the straight leg. This gives a differential since the angulardisplacement of the belcrank is increased for any given linear displacement of theaft of thethe line ofvarying the ratio between the length of the angled legs of the belcrankand the effective lengths of the rudder pedal arms (and the desired throwof the pedals forward of neutral). The ratio of the length of the angledlegs of the belcrank to the straight legs and, finally, to the length of the
|
|
Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics
David J. Gall
Peter,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Allow me to rebut: Part of the reason it skids is that the plans ratio moves it too much. At higher speeds, the tailwheel is quickly and easily pushed past the limiting slip angle and it begins to skid. Like an all-flying tailplane that has too much throw, the pilot can push it right past "stall" and it becomes less effective than it could be were it not stalled. Likewise, the plans ratio allows the rudder control system to push the tailwheel right on past the skid limit of the tire (between 3 and 7 degrees, depending on tire type) when the pilot applies "a little" rudder pressure. At lower speeds, when the tail can respond and a turning radius can be accomodated, the amount of deflection can be more without exceeding the limiting slip angle. So it makes sense to have a differential system. At higher speeds the smaller throw near center helps to keep from skidding the tailwheel, actually increasing effectiveness, and at lower speeds the large throw needed for ramp maneuvering is still available. If you think it is a lot of complication, consider that your airplane actually has the opposite, a DEcreasing differential, due to the installed angle of the rudder pedals and the absence of any thought given to the design. The cables simply attach to the sides of the rudder pedals, so as the rudder pedal is pressed forward the amount of linear pull on the cable actually diminishes for increasing angular displacement of the rudder pedal. Lack of thought does not imply simplicity; more thoughtful design does not imply increased complication. I gave a perfectly valid suggestion that increases the "fail point" count by exactly ZERO while reversing the bass-ackwards differential that the fine folks at QAC gave you. Simply change the shape of the one-piece rudder pedal so that the cable attach point is aft of the hinge axis. This one change will give INcreasing differential without all the monkey-motion of a belcrank, if you wish, while still addressing the fundamental issue of an ill-executed design. I'd wager that there aren't many airplane designers who actually take the time to think about the linkages they create in their control systems, and we consumers/pilots pay the price every day. Burt Rutan is not immune from mess-ups in his designs, and having Tom Jewett do the detail design work on the Quickie was no guarantee of error detection and correction. Gary LeGare (the plumber) scaling up the design to two-place certainly didn't add any particular expertise in the realm of control system design and the ensuing redesign for mass production was not about refinement, either. So you have a minimalist system that had no real thought given to it adopted in toto and you now wish to defend it on the basis of its "simplicity" and limited number of "fail points"? Hello? It doesn't work right, what about that? The design itself IS a fail point, witness its failure to prevent the tailwheel from skidding during the fast part of the ground run. Were it not for the many, more serious design issues missed by the QAC, we would have been on about this one, say, twenty years ago, but it has taken us this long to synthesize a consensus on the JB6Pack to where we can actually start to talk about fine-tuning. If that warrants poo-pooing, then so be it. Some things truly aren't worth persuing; this one is, and I knew it in 1997 when I first published my thoughts on the matter. Carry on, O gravel-runway reflexor-less single-data-point friend.... David J. Gall P.S. And your Norton Rotary wasn't a lot of complication for dubious results...? P.P.S. When are Jabiru going to finally hire an internal-flow consultant to design proper cooling for their engines instead of telling owners to burn 'em in for 50-100 hrs until they "loosen up"? Some of the nicest engines, some of the most pitiful cowls.... :(
-----Original Message-----
|
|
Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Thanks Larry.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
To me it seems like an awful lot of complication for a dubious result. The sensitivity of the tailwheel steering increases as the speed reduces. At first touchdown the aircraft momentum and tail makes it stay straight and any attempt to deflect it is limited by the flex of the tailspring and the grip of the tyre, so at first it will skid rather than deflect the tail. Later in the ground roll the plans ratio seems right for the job to me. I think it is just something we learn to do and get the feel with familiarity. But I am in favour of most ideas as long as they are not compulsory. Cheers Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Larry Hamm Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:32 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics Peter, No, Bob Farnum wanted a tailwheel which turned faster as more pedal was applied. Less twitchy when centered or nearly so, strong response toward the limits. Larry Hamm Peter Harris wrote:
Fellers,
|
|
Re: Tri Q nebie
Gérard Rouleau <geair@...>
Austin,
For the speed limit, in the section about the belly board that was added to my Q-2 construction plans, it says: "We recommend that the board be deployed at a maximum of 110 knots (126 mph). After deployment, a maximum speed of 130 knots (150 mph) should be observed." Gerard Richard, I have the airbrake mod installed. Hadn't heard of the engine fume problem previously. It seems to be plumbed in pretty tightly but at 100+knots air can get anywhere i suppose.(i don't know if there is a speed limit on it's use) Does anyone have any answers on this subject? Austin
|
|
Re: I give!
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
'Onyer Steve that makes two of us.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:14 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] I give! Me either....... Steve Ham
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] I give! Jim I have never had to repair for a ground handling problem either. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] I give! Fellas, Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several builders followed suit and have great handling planes. As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and has no basis in fact. My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@... <mailto:ng%40msn.com> . I give! Just remember when your ass is on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought, there was a fix! Best Regards, Jim Patillo Q200 Novice
|
|
Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics
Larry Hamm <LDHAMM@...>
Peter,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
No, Bob Farnum wanted a tailwheel which turned faster as more pedal was applied. Less twitchy when centered or nearly so, strong response toward the limits. Larry Hamm Peter Harris wrote:
Fellers,
|
|
Re: I give!
Steve <sham@...>
Me either.......
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Steve Ham
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:18 PM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] I give! Jim I have never had to repair for a ground handling problem either. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] I give! Fellas, Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several builders followed suit and have great handling planes. As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and has no basis in fact. My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@.... I give! Just remember when your ass is on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought, there was a fix! Best Regards, Jim Patillo Q200 Novice
|
|
Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Fellers,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Are you really doing all this so you get more rudder authority in rollout? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Bob Farnam Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 4:47 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics Good suggestions, David. The "K" belcrank would also provide stronger centering action from the pedal return springs - not a bad thing. Might make a good winter project. Bob F.
-----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 David J. Gall Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:33 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics Bob, Larry Hamm's suggestion is good but it requires significant angular displacement of the belcrank to get any substantial differential. Consider this alternative: Make your tailcone belcrank in the shape of the letter 'K' with the angled legs pointing forward. The rudder pedal cables connect to the angled legs, but the rudder and tailwheel cables connect to the straight leg. This gives a differential since the angular displacement of the belcrank is increased for any given linear displacement of the cable the more the angled belcrank leg moves forward in its arc [d-theta/d-x goes as 1/cos(theta)]. Similarly, move the cable attachment points on the rudder pedals aft of the plane of the rudder pedal pivot so that as the rudder pedal is pressed forward, the attachment point arm becomes more perpendicular to the line of travel of the cable. Either of these geometries will induce a differential movement in the belcrank; both together will give even more differential. The resulting angular differential can be amplified or reduced by varying the ratio between the length of the angled legs of the belcrank and the effective lengths of the rudder pedal arms (and the desired throw of the pedals forward of neutral). The ratio of the length of the angled legs of the belcrank to the straight legs and, finally, to the length of the rudder and tailwheel belhorns will control the total angle of the rudder and tailwheel deflections with rudder pedal displacement. David J. Gall P.S. Larry's suggestion does not have to be fabricated as an oval or ellipse; a simple diamond or even a rectangle will work. -----Original Message-----[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
|
|
My Changes
Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
I would surely hope Jim and others don't quit on answering questions about
any part of Q construction. We all need to review all the idea's to arrive at what we think is for each of us builders. I will give the reasons for the changes I have made which are factual and can be proven technically if I cared to take the time. As far as the extra bellcrank, it is a fact they are adding more parts which could fail. With my system, (standard tail dragger configuration), I go from the rudder pedals direct to the rudder bellcrank then through two tailwheel springs to the tailwheel. I can achieve the same less turning radius of the tailwheel by just using the small gear big gear theory I explained in my last post. (Thank you Bob for correcting me as I had it backwards). In talking with Bob Farnan about this a few years ago he was concerned about the strength of the rudder bellcrank, and I agree that must be strong enough to withstand someone standing on the pedals to stop. With Hydraulics you can skid the tires with very little pressure if you made the geometry at the pedals right. (But what is the failure rate of the rudder bellcrank). That is a very easy thing to beef up instead of adding all those bellcranks and extra parts. Interrupting the rudder control cable in the middle is not my idea of a safe installation. If there are those that want to go with the extra parts have at it. As far as the wheel alignment I would hope we all agree this is a very important part of construction. Since there are those that are flying with doing it per plans and those that have done the 6pac mod proves to me one thing. They both have the correct alignment for their particular Q. considering total weight on wheels and strength of the canard for spring. My system allows for adjustment with different strength and or weight. What adjustment is available with pointing a line to a fixed point at the other wheel through the axle? So if yours is flying straight just be thankful. I know for a fact Jim and Bobs go down the runway straight as I have been a passenger 3 times with him and once with Bob F. I would not build another one without toe brakes, I am flying a Sonerai with heal brakes and they suck. It is great I don't need them on the runway, just for stopping in front of the hangar. What I have stated here are my ideas that have not flown yet. Just like those that came up with the 6pac and various other ideas when they have not yet flown either when they were designed. That is what Experimental is all about. Enjoy it and learn from others. Ron Triano South Lake Tahoe, CA The Sonerai is finished and flying finishing the Q200
|
|
Re: I give!
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Jim I have never had to repair for a ground handling problem either.
Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] I give! Fellas, Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several builders followed suit and have great handling planes. As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and has no basis in fact. My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@.... I give! Just remember when your ass is on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought, there was a fix! Best Regards, Jim Patillo Q200 Novice
|
|
Re: I give!
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Jim loosen up man. I love your posts because of your great generosity of
spirit. But don't make the JB6pack compulsory! You don't have a mortgage on new ideas. There are a lot of clever ideas out there and hopefully will be more. We are smarter than you think! Cheers mate ! _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 5:11 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] I give! Fellas, Well we've certainly had interesting debates regarding the JB6Pack. We went 20+ years cracking up planes before Bob Farnam and I came out and said "here's how to fix your ground handling problems." Several builders followed suit and have great handling planes. As the shit was stirred and eventually hit the fan, Bob Farnam chose not to back me up publically but thats his style, and I understand. I on the other hand will never be politically correct and say what I think. There are others out there (Sam, Paul, Peter to name a few)that have had success with their own designs. In fact, I think they are still using the original tail wheels as well. Their planes work because they mastered them. BTW they still never answered my question, "How many times they repaired their planes due to ground handling mishaps"? OK Fine. "I didn't do the mods because it creates more fail points". OK Fine but that is simply a fictious statement and has no basis in fact. My only goal ever was been to make these planes safer to handle and fly. God knows we've had enough bad press from knuckleheads smashing their planes, yes even before they get off the ground. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has at least one. Facts on the other hand are different. Facts are facts and having said that, you all know the pro's and cons. I wish you all well and have no interest in commenting further EVER on the JB6Pack on this site. If you want to go this route I am happy to talk to you in private. My e-mail is logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@.... I give! Just remember when your ass is on the line and things aren't working just quite the way you thought, there was a fix! Best Regards, Jim Patillo Q200 Novice
|
|
Re: the Official Runway Distance thread
Hello Charlie:
My use of the terms "up" and "down" I have tried to clarify by stating the position of the trailing edge in relation with the wing's trialing edge. So I will reiterate in an attempt not to call the reflex position either up" or "down" since I may have it reversed in terms of how the sailplane folks call it. I want to have a nose down attitude upon decent on final. I set there reflexor control to a forward position. This causes my nose to pitch down because the main wing is reflexed so that the ailerons trailing edges are down relative to the main wing. This creates some additional lift in the main wing and causes the tail to raise / nose to lower. Upon landing and having three wheels on the deck, the last thing I want to happen is for the main wing to get airborn for any reason whatsoever other than upon adding full power. The main wing has been in a state where the wing had the highest lift potential as described in the previous paragraph. Now that the plane is a tricycle, I pull the reflex lever back and this causes the trailing edges of the ailerons to cross neutral and rise above the trailing edges of the main wing. I'm pretty happy that the main wing is now configured to have the least amount of lift potential and I am less concerned about wind gusts causing that portion of the plane from coming up. The tail wheel is down for the rollout. So I have attempted to use the terms "Up" and "Down" to describe the effect on the rear of the aircraft. Cheer, Phil
|
|
Re: Reflexor
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Dave,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks for your helpful and detailed post re the reflexor. I do understand that the reflexor and the elevator can be "tuned" for level flight by moving both in the same direction and I have seen how much the view changes with the aelerons flush. I have a couple of questions and comments: When set down are your aelerons flush? In the case below you saw a small increase in airspeed when the reflexor was adjusted for a flush elevator but most report that a small elevator up gives more airspeed and that makes more sense to me as both the canard and the wing would be unloaded.? This is another case where there are different reports about the effect and use of the reflexor and I think it should be clarified. < I used the elevator trim to fair in the elevator and readjusted the reflexor to fly level again. Two things happened and they were both good. I picked up about 2-3 mph and the nose was lower relative to the horizon. It was so much lower I thought I was in a dive until I crosschecked my instruments. > <I know there can be installation variations in the way the wing and canard are mounted relative to the fueslage as well as many other factors, but for me, letting the plane fly faired in on both wings seems to give pretty good results. I'm guessing there is less drag when things are faired in. > I have never felt too much reflexed up with a passenger Dave, but need to use the aeleron (roll) trim. Right now I am still in the process of finding the best settings for the new installation <Do you feel like you have too much reflexed up when you fly with a passenger and the CG is more aft? > Yes but my aelerons are already reflexed up (fixed) for this condition <The other nice thing the reflexor does is it allows me to take the pressure off the elevator after I raise the nose up and reduce power abeam the numbers. By doing this the elevator is faired in again but I'm descending at 500' fpm or what ever descent rate I'm working with based on the throttle setting. It also helps me lock in or maintain the airspeed I'm using because I can raise the nose to trim to a particular airspeed and the elevators are still faired in. By doing this I end up on short final with the elevators pretty close to faired in and I have full travel available yet I have an established descent rate at a selected airspeed that the reflexor let me control. > I agree with your idea that the plans elevator trim adjuster is hard to reach and I have replaced it with a cable adjuster fitted also in the left quadrant What it amounts to Dave is that the reflexor is a second pitch trim device , an alternative additional to the elevator trim which I am using as originally planned but it has the advantage that it can be used in conjunction with the elevator to alter the pitch of the hull. . < So, to me, the reflexor is a primary trim control I use now on takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and landings. I have it installed in my lower left quadrent along with the throttle. It is easier and less disruptive to use vs. reaching across to the center lower area for the elevator trim, too. I was told to use a vernier to control the reflexor and I'm glad I listened. I can make both quick changes and small adjustments with ease. It helps me correct for weight changes. It helps me lock in airspeeds during climbs and descents. It also helps me trim for best speed. On take off in my Tri-Q, it helps me regulate how much pressure I'll need to pull back on the stick to rotate depending on weight. Actually, I think the only time I don't use the reflexor is when I'm taxiing. <grin>[Peter Harris] Tou love it ! I started to make a reflexer a few years ago and quit because of the access problem and when I realized that aileron up was best for landing and also best for fast cruise, but your report is different from others re cruise settings . Dave Have you tried for fast cruise with elevator and aelerons both up? I think you should find it goes faster ?. <Installing the Falkner inflight adjustable reflexor would be much less work than you think and would be far easier to reset than what you go through for your ground adjustable version of the reflexor right now. You could be done with most of the glass work in a weekend. Just make sure you set it up so moving the control forward lowers the ailerons and pulling the control aft raises the ailerons. That way the control moves the same way you move your elevators and you won't confuse which direction you need to apply the reflexor. > Is there a link to the Falkner plans? I will look into it again if it can be done without the saw job. Thanks Dave, Peter Dave Richardson Tri-Q2 825DR
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Harris Sent: Sun 10/22/2006 5:00 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Cc: Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] the Official Runway Distance thread Phil I have not fitted a reflexor because I think I would need to cut the hull for access to make it. But it seems to me that the only reason to have a reflexor is so that you can improve visibility as in your case on the final approach. Otherwise the Q flies faster and also flares better for landing with the aelerons up. I have been working with aelerons fixed up 3/8" and suffer a slight visibility issue on late final and flare but flare and cruise are optimum with the fixed setting. Peter
|
|