Date   

Re: the Official Runway Distance thread

One Sky Dog
 

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

Richard Thomson
 

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.

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@...>
 

-----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:

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

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:

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@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On
Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:33 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
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-----
> From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
> On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:08 AM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
>
> My ratio is not as much as I would like, but is limited by my
> own requirement that I be able to reach the unlock detent on
> the full swivelling tailwheel at full rudder. This so I can
> pivot around a wheel on the ground.
> The result is that my airplane is less sensitive than the
> original design - enough that I can fairly easily steer it
> straight at takeoff speed, but still sensitive. I would
> really like to have what the RC guys refer to as
> "exponential" control, where the response is low in the
> center part of the travel, but increases at full rudder
> input. Easy to do with an RC transmitter which has it
> builtin, but I haven't yet figured out a simple and durable
> mechanical way to make it happen. Anyone have a sudden flash
> of insight?
>
> Bob F
> EAA Flight Advisor






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


Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

David J. Gall
 

Peter,

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-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Peter Harris
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:07 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Thanks Larry.

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


Re: "Exponential" differential via mechanics

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Thanks Larry.

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,

Are you really doing all this so you get more rudder authority in rollout?

Peter


Re: Tri Q nebie

GĂ©rard 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.

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,
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,
Are you really doing all this so you get more rudder authority in rollout?
Peter


Re: I give!

Steve <sham@...>
 

Me either.......
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,

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-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Bob Farnam
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)

My ratio is not as much as I would like, but is limited by my
own requirement that I be able to reach the unlock detent on
the full swivelling tailwheel at full rudder. This so I can
pivot around a wheel on the ground.
The result is that my airplane is less sensitive than the
original design - enough that I can fairly easily steer it
straight at takeoff speed, but still sensitive. I would
really like to have what the RC guys refer to as
"exponential" control, where the response is low in the
center part of the travel, but increases at full rudder
input. Easy to do with an RC transmitter which has it
builtin, but I haven't yet figured out a simple and durable
mechanical way to make it happen. Anyone have a sudden flash
of insight?

Bob F
EAA Flight Advisor


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

britmcman99
 

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,

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