Re: high speed taxi

Mike Conlin

Neil, I had two positions, the first being approx 1/4", then the
second was 3/8" to 1/2"---(meant to mention that the stick WAS heavy
until approaching 90 mph. I did make several runway "flights" prior
to actual flight away from the airport.)
--- In Q-LIST@y..., Neil Jepsen <jepsen@x> wrote:
How much did you reflex up the ailerons conlin>

conlin_m wrote:

Neil, I too had a problem similar to yours after rebuilding a
wrecked Q2 into a Tri-Q. I would have to accelerate to 90 mph, in
order to get nose wheel lift off. the plane had a reflexor but I
wasn't confortable with it, so flew it that way for a few hours.
top
speed was 140 mph. I decided to try the reflexor, and was
shocked..........

Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>

Dave, when you say 1/4" is that 1/4 up measured at the trailing edge of
an aileron?
I can do this by adjustment of the rod ends on the aileron push rods.
neil

Dave Dugas wrote:

Neil....I agree with Chris. Hopefully you have some adjustment in
your
aileron tubes to accomplish this. On my Q2 the reflexors are very
sensitive. The full range of travel is about 3/4". Reflex the
ailerons up
about 1/4" and you should really see a difference. I wouldn't go any
more
than that on the first try, and even smaller increments if you need
to.
Dave Dugas

----- Original Message -----
From: DorotheaKeats and ChrisWalterson <dkeats@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen------- Good to see the taxi problem is solved. If you
have the T-tail, I am assuming you have no reflexor. If this is
the
case and your C of G is in the back half of the envelope, you may
want
to try to reflex your ailerons up a bit to give the wing a little
less
lift. Go only at small increments. Just a thought-------- Canada
Chris

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>

How much did you reflex up the ailerons conlin>

conlin_m wrote:

Neil, I too had a problem similar to yours after rebuilding a
wrecked Q2 into a Tri-Q. I would have to accelerate to 90 mph, in
order to get nose wheel lift off. the plane had a reflexor but I
wasn't confortable with it, so flew it that way for a few hours. top
speed was 140 mph. I decided to try the reflexor, and was shocked at
the sudden pitch-up. after re-trim, the plane speed increased to 155
mph. Decided to try it for take off. I could now rotate approx 75 mph.

It turns out the Main wing was producing too much lift, and
by "spoiling" some of that by reflexing the ailerons up, I was able
to make things more "normal".

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Re: high speed taxi

Dave Dugas <daveq2@...>

Neil....I agree with Chris. Hopefully you have some adjustment in your
aileron tubes to accomplish this. On my Q2 the reflexors are very
sensitive. The full range of travel is about 3/4". Reflex the ailerons up
about 1/4" and you should really see a difference. I wouldn't go any more
than that on the first try, and even smaller increments if you need to.
Dave Dugas

----- Original Message -----
From: DorotheaKeats and ChrisWalterson <dkeats@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen------- Good to see the taxi problem is solved. If you
have the T-tail, I am assuming you have no reflexor. If this is the
case and your C of G is in the back half of the envelope, you may want
to try to reflex your ailerons up a bit to give the wing a little less
lift. Go only at small increments. Just a thought-------- Canada Chris

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: Prop type

dfwsfug <dfwsfug@...>

Jim,
Thanks for the reply. We are interested in homemade prop carving your
almost constant speed is a fascinating design. I assume it has a tip
pitch of about 22Â°The trailing edge is straight with sweep back on
the leading edge.When you get a chance if you could:
1.measure the prop flat(bottom) chord" at tip station 30"
2.chord" and station ??" at the widest part just where it begins to
sweep back toward the tip if could get pitch angle differential from
the tip angle in Â° will give us the twist rate.
3.chord" and station ??" nearest the hub just at the point where the
flat bottom begins to narrow and round out to meet the hub.
Do you recall the MP to maintain 2200 RPM at altitude say 8000MSL?
Give me an idea of lower power absorbion needs.Judging from your
posted performance numbers it is indeed a work of art worthy of study.
CE in Southern Saskatchewan -34Â° overnite
--- In Q-LIST@y..., "James Patillo" <patillo@a...> wrote:
CE,

My prop is a 60/66 Warnke "Almost Constant Speed" made by Berne
Warnke
around 1985 before he died. I really like it and its a work of art
besides!
There are a few still floating around in this group possibly.

Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200

Mike Conlin

Paul, I could not readily locate the Pictures I told you about, but
did run across some correspondence Marc had sent out. One of them
included two of the pics I was looking for. Also found some pics of
the Tri-Q with the "sparless" canard attached. I have posted those on
this group list Photos.
Mike Conlin

Re: high speed taxi

Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>

Neil
If the template you refer to is based on the hot wire template[ at BL50 for
the wing and BL48.8 for the canard], then the contour will be for the bare
foam core. This does NOT allow for the glass thickness build up on the spar
cap area, which is [probably] why your template 'rocks' when placed on the
top of the airfoil.
There is a lack of information as to whether or not the hot wire templates
were adjusted in contour, to allow for the eventual variable glass thickness
across the cord line, in order to finish up with the correct GU profile. If
they were not adjusted [i.e. made slightly thinner] to allow for the glass,
then obviously the finished profile of the wing will be slightly fatter than
the designed GU airfoil. Does it matter? Personally, I think not, but if
you try and contour the airfoil to match the hot wire template, you will
obviously remove glass at its thickest point, the spar caps. You do not want
to do this!
Page 3-18 of the plans has a paragraph titled 'Canard surface smoothness is
critical' and goes on to define the criteria and method to define
smoothness, using a steel flexible ruler and feeler gauges. The maximum gap
allowed under the ruler, along a two inch section of the first 50% of cord,
is .005" This is the criteria you should use for 'profiling', not try to
make the profile comply with the hot wire templates.
If you simply want to find out if your airfoil angles are correct [which
would be a darn good idea] make another two templates, one for the canard
and one for the main wing, as per my previous post. It is not difficult to
do, should only take an hour, and would give you a solid starting
point for solving your problem, not to mention providing useful 'need to
know' information.
Incidentally, QAC went on to say that they built and installed a canard that
had very poor low speed performance. Stall speed was 10 mph higher than
predicted and the stall angle of attack over three degrees lower than
estimated. The problem was traced to a wavy upper surface. The 'bad' canard
had gaps under the flexible ruler of .012", and after refinishing with gaps
of less than .005" the stall angle of attack increased from 8 deg. to 12
deg.
Paul
Buckley@...

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Hi John. the template I have came for from John D. I havent looked at
them for a while so will have another look.

"jtenhave@..." wrote:

Neil,

my apologies for not replying earlier - my arms no longer reached the
keyboard....

Here are a couple of suggestions for you. Get hold of that Q2 guy
(John
Dunn)in Paekakariki and borrow his templates - they probably took a
year to
build so they are likely to be close. If you find the contour is
still
wrong - and it may well be try averaging the errors i.e rock the
template
on the high spot, and split the gap between leading edge and trailing
edge
and see what you get. I suggest that you do not cut up the template to
fit
- then all you will have is two things which you know are wrong.

As a second suggestion, try mounting the template just above the
canard in
space, level the aircraft and then position the template at the
correct
orientation ( level line level) and see what you see. If the canard
section is too far out, do not discount reprofiling it It is likely to
be
easier than a new canard - and we know that yours is strong enough.

The wrong canard incidence has several undesirable consequences : the
canard has to fly faster to develop any given amount of lift. you are
reducing the margin of safety which is provided by the canard stalling

before the wing, you will have to land faster, you will have to extend
the
take off roll to take off. Sam Hoskins has altered his canard
incidence,
check his web site.

Regards

John

Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>

Hi John. the template I have came for from John D. I havent looked at
them for a while so will have another look.

"jtenhave@..." wrote:

Neil,

my apologies for not replying earlier - my arms no longer reached the
keyboard....

Here are a couple of suggestions for you. Get hold of that Q2 guy
(John
Dunn)in Paekakariki and borrow his templates - they probably took a
year to
build so they are likely to be close. If you find the contour is
still
wrong - and it may well be try averaging the errors i.e rock the
template
on the high spot, and split the gap between leading edge and trailing
edge
and see what you get. I suggest that you do not cut up the template to
fit
- then all you will have is two things which you know are wrong.

As a second suggestion, try mounting the template just above the
canard in
space, level the aircraft and then position the template at the
correct
orientation ( level line level) and see what you see. If the canard
section is too far out, do not discount reprofiling it It is likely to
be
easier than a new canard - and we know that yours is strong enough.

The wrong canard incidence has several undesirable consequences : the
canard has to fly faster to develop any given amount of lift. you are
reducing the margin of safety which is provided by the canard stalling

before the wing, you will have to land faster, you will have to extend
the
take off roll to take off. Sam Hoskins has altered his canard
incidence,
check his web site.

Regards

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen [SMTP:jepsen@...]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:19 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

This is something i've worried about for a while david. The 'loose'
fit
is mainly due I think to errors in the cutting, sanding and the fact
that i made my templatesd from a photocopy of someone else's plans.
I'm
aware of the bug, paint line senario, and true there are span wise
errors that don't meet the plans criterion, but chordwise the errors (

disp & hollows) are much better, and fortunately the cannard is much
better than the wing. I want to be sure ..very sure...before I take
an
angle grinder to the canard to change the angle. But I don't want to
fly
it if there is an ancidence problem. Question for you...will it fly if

the canard is at the wrong incidence. By my eye balling and crude
measurements., i reckon the canard is about -0.5 deg to the wing. the
builders plans called for 0 -0 and it wasn't until a few yrs after he
built it that the +1.5deg thing came out. So the -.5deg sort of makes
sense. He got everything else wrong, crooked, upside down, so why not
the wing incidence! What will happen if I attempt to fly it at -0.5?

"David J. Gall" wrote:

Neil,

You say your templates are a "loose" fit; if the contour on the
upper
surface of the canard from the leading edge back to the maximum
thickness is
incorrect or rough or disturbed by even something as small as a
paint
line,
dirt, bug spooge, or visible moisture, it will severely compromise
the

amount of lift that the canard can generate (old-style GU canard).

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen [mailto:jepsen@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Hi Paul
Beacuse the plans templates are a "loose" fit on my
wings, and by rocking them back and forth, I can get any angle I
wish
(within reason), so if I make the templates fit the wings, how do I
know
they are correct, without referencing back to the chord ? You see my
dilemma.
neil

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Re: high speed taxi

jtenhave@mets.mq.edu.au <jtenhave@...>

Neil,

my apologies for not replying earlier - my arms no longer reached the
keyboard....

Here are a couple of suggestions for you. Get hold of that Q2 guy (John
Dunn)in Paekakariki and borrow his templates - they probably took a year to
build so they are likely to be close. If you find the contour is still
wrong - and it may well be try averaging the errors i.e rock the template
on the high spot, and split the gap between leading edge and trailing edge
and see what you get. I suggest that you do not cut up the template to fit
- then all you will have is two things which you know are wrong.

As a second suggestion, try mounting the template just above the canard in
space, level the aircraft and then position the template at the correct
orientation ( level line level) and see what you see. If the canard
section is too far out, do not discount reprofiling it It is likely to be
easier than a new canard - and we know that yours is strong enough.

The wrong canard incidence has several undesirable consequences : the
canard has to fly faster to develop any given amount of lift. you are
reducing the margin of safety which is provided by the canard stalling
before the wing, you will have to land faster, you will have to extend the
take off roll to take off. Sam Hoskins has altered his canard incidence,
check his web site.

Regards

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen [SMTP:jepsen@...]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:19 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

This is something i've worried about for a while david. The 'loose' fit
is mainly due I think to errors in the cutting, sanding and the fact
that i made my templatesd from a photocopy of someone else's plans. I'm
aware of the bug, paint line senario, and true there are span wise
errors that don't meet the plans criterion, but chordwise the errors (
disp & hollows) are much better, and fortunately the cannard is much
better than the wing. I want to be sure ..very sure...before I take an
angle grinder to the canard to change the angle. But I don't want to fly
it if there is an ancidence problem. Question for you...will it fly if
the canard is at the wrong incidence. By my eye balling and crude
measurements., i reckon the canard is about -0.5 deg to the wing. the
builders plans called for 0 -0 and it wasn't until a few yrs after he
built it that the +1.5deg thing came out. So the -.5deg sort of makes
sense. He got everything else wrong, crooked, upside down, so why not
the wing incidence! What will happen if I attempt to fly it at -0.5?

"David J. Gall" wrote:

Neil,

You say your templates are a "loose" fit; if the contour on the upper
surface of the canard from the leading edge back to the maximum
thickness is
incorrect or rough or disturbed by even something as small as a paint
line,
dirt, bug spooge, or visible moisture, it will severely compromise the

amount of lift that the canard can generate (old-style GU canard).

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen [mailto:jepsen@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Hi Paul
Beacuse the plans templates are a "loose" fit on my
wings, and by rocking them back and forth, I can get any angle I wish
(within reason), so if I make the templates fit the wings, how do I
know
they are correct, without referencing back to the chord ? You see my
dilemma.
neil

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: O-200 cooling

Justin Mace <n764jm@...>

At 05:46 PM 1/27/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Justin,

I do not have a cowl flap but bottom cowl extends about 2 1/2" past firewall
rearward. Flew today with outside temps around 15C at Sea level and -5C at
12,500' The oil temperature ran 190 degrees F. and oil pressure 45 lbs.

Remeasured inlets today. They are oval shaped and 2"H ax 3" W. Opening at
rear of bottom cowl is 41/2"H ax 16"W. I don't know about any of that black
magic stuff, just reporting what I see. Good luck.

P.S. A little later this year I will install FI & EI and will be talking to
you.

Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200
Sounds great Jim, with any luck at all I'll see you at Laughlin/Bullhead
City in April.
Justin

Re: O-200 cooling

Justin Mace <n764jm@...>

At 07:52 PM 1/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Justin,

It sounds to me like you've achieved "pressure recovery." Very useful. The
late George Mead (one of Burt Rutan's original crew) cooled the C-80 on his
"Adventure" with about 15 square inches of inlet and outlet. When he changed
over to an O-200, he couldn't sustain full power at Vy for more than 5
minutes, but he cruise-climbed at full power at about 120 mph with adequate
cooling (max cruise 210+). He was not using an oil cooler, either.
David

David, so far so good, if I can get to the magic 18" inlet and outlet I
don't think I can do any better. With any luck it looks like it will
happen. I think with the dirty DF airframe the 210 mph mark is well out of
reach at least on 100 ponies.
Justin

Re: high speed taxi

Mike Conlin

Neil, I too had a problem similar to yours after rebuilding a
wrecked Q2 into a Tri-Q. I would have to accelerate to 90 mph, in
order to get nose wheel lift off. the plane had a reflexor but I
wasn't confortable with it, so flew it that way for a few hours. top
speed was 140 mph. I decided to try the reflexor, and was shocked at
the sudden pitch-up. after re-trim, the plane speed increased to 155
mph. Decided to try it for take off. I could now rotate approx 75 mph.
It turns out the Main wing was producing too much lift, and
by "spoiling" some of that by reflexing the ailerons up, I was able
to make things more "normal".

Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>

This is something i've worried about for a while david. The 'loose' fit
is mainly due I think to errors in the cutting, sanding and the fact
that i made my templatesd from a photocopy of someone else's plans. I'm
aware of the bug, paint line senario, and true there are span wise
errors that don't meet the plans criterion, but chordwise the errors (
disp & hollows) are much better, and fortunately the cannard is much
better than the wing. I want to be sure ..very sure...before I take an
angle grinder to the canard to change the angle. But I don't want to fly
it if there is an ancidence problem. Question for you...will it fly if
the canard is at the wrong incidence. By my eye balling and crude
measurements., i reckon the canard is about -0.5 deg to the wing. the
builders plans called for 0 -0 and it wasn't until a few yrs after he
built it that the +1.5deg thing came out. So the -.5deg sort of makes
sense. He got everything else wrong, crooked, upside down, so why not
the wing incidence! What will happen if I attempt to fly it at -0.5?

"David J. Gall" wrote:

Neil,

You say your templates are a "loose" fit; if the contour on the upper
surface of the canard from the leading edge back to the maximum
thickness is
incorrect or rough or disturbed by even something as small as a paint
line,
dirt, bug spooge, or visible moisture, it will severely compromise the

amount of lift that the canard can generate (old-style GU canard).

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen [mailto:jepsen@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Hi Paul
Beacuse the plans templates are a "loose" fit on my
wings, and by rocking them back and forth, I can get any angle I wish
(within reason), so if I make the templates fit the wings, how do I
know
they are correct, without referencing back to the chord ? You see my
dilemma.
neil

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Re: O-200 cooling

James Patillo <patillo@...>

Justin,

I do not have a cowl flap but bottom cowl extends about 2 1/2" past firewall
rearward. Flew today with outside temps around 15C at Sea level and -5C at
12,500' The oil temperature ran 190 degrees F. and oil pressure 45 lbs.

Remeasured inlets today. They are oval shaped and 2"H ax 3" W. Opening at
rear of bottom cowl is 41/2"H ax 16"W. I don't know about any of that black
magic stuff, just reporting what I see. Good luck.

P.S. A little later this year I will install FI & EI and will be talking to
you.

Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200

Re: high speed taxi

Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>

Yes Neil, I understand your dilemma, but it is not really a problem!
On looking back through your posts I think you have a GU canard that you did
not build yourself,..........yes?
If this is so, then your template rocks, about centre cord, on the glass
thickness built up at this point due to the large number of spar caps
required of this canard.
However, you do not require the template to faithfully follow the entire
surface of the airfoil,.......one point near the leading edge and another
point at the back end of the slot core would be sufficient, both these
points having minimum glass and, hopefully, little filler. Simply 'relieve'
the template between these two 'feet'. If you haven't made the template
yourself and don't trust it, make another one using the BL50 hot wire
template as a guide,...... you require the female 'off-cut' of course!
Before you cut the plywood [or whatever], make sure that the top edge
accurately parallels the level line because once cut you will lose the rear
level line reference point. Your elevators can stay in situ because the
template will only go back as far as the slot.
As far as your fuselage level line is concerned, if you have any doubts
about its accuracy check that firewall is vertical when the fuz is level.
OK?
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Hi Paul
Beacuse the plans templates are a "loose" fit on my
wings, and by rocking them back and forth, I can get any angle I wish
(within reason), so if I make the templates fit the wings, how do I know
they are correct, without referencing back to the chord ? You see my
dilemma.
neil

Paul Buckley wrote:

Neil
Surely you don't need to know the cord line in order to find your
angle of
incidence.
Why don't you just make templates with the level lines marked as per
the
original, fit them to the airfoil in the appropriate positions and
then
compare them with the fuselage level line. If the aircraft has been
assembled as per the plans, then the level lines should all be the
same. If
the canard has been glassed in place with an extra degree or two of
incidence, then this will be shown by the extra 'incidence' of its
level
line. It will also confirm the difference, if any, between the canard
and
the main wing, and this would be a much more useful piece of
information for
you.
Paul Buckley
TriQ-200, 95% finished, 95% to go!
Cheshire, England

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Now I'm glad you mentioned that Mike. HOW????
Today I got my "smart level" with 0.1degree resolution, and
attempted to
do just that. Bearing in mind I don't have the original wing
templates,
and its a total waste of time making some to fit the wing, because
you
can make any chord line you like. For the main wing, I took a point
midway on the leading edge and midway on the trailing edge, just
outboard of the aileron. I assumed the chord joined these two points
and
measured the angle of the chord in deg to the horizontal. It was1
.4deg
with the A/C water line level.
Now to the cannard. Now how do I find and measure the chord line of
the
canard.? For starters the top is curved and the botton is flat.
Secondly
there is an elevator stuck to to the trailing edge...how do I find
the
centre of the trailing edge, and does the chord line in fact pass
thru
the centre of the leading and trailing edges. ??! As a matter of
interest, the "almost "flat bottom of the cannard was at about 0deg
relative to the horizontal. That means my cannard "may" be at the
wrong
angle!
neil

Mike Dwyer wrote:

May want to recheck your angle of attack on the wings also.
Mike Q-200
----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Jepsen
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Some weeks ago, I reported that my Q2 was almost uncontrollable
on
the
ground during fast taxi ( 60 mph). Well I'm pleased to report
that
after
loweruing the tail wheel authority by adding 1.5" to the
tailwheel
bellcrank ( on the tailwheel itself) and returning the angle of
the
tail
wheel hinge pin to plans angle ( at right angles to the spring
and
therefore in my mind, totally at the wrong angle to the ground)
yesterday I did several 60 - 70 mph runs and at last felt as
though
I
could land this thing without ending up in the weeds.
However
I still have a problem I think. The tail wheel
lifts at

about 65 - 70mph in spite of full tail-down T trim and full back
stick,
and once the tail is up, it stays up until the speed drops to
55
mph. I know, I know: where is my C of G I hear you ask. Well
at
the
last measurement, it was in the rear half of the envelope, but I
will
re-measure it today, as well as measuring the angle of the wing
and
cannard.
watch this pace.
neil

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: O-200 cooling

David J. Gall

Justin,

It sounds to me like you've achieved "pressure recovery." Very useful. The
late George Mead (one of Burt Rutan's original crew) cooled the C-80 on his
"Adventure" with about 15 square inches of inlet and outlet. When he changed
over to an O-200, he couldn't sustain full power at Vy for more than 5
minutes, but he cruise-climbed at full power at about 120 mph with adequate
cooling (max cruise 210+). He was not using an oil cooler, either.

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Mace [mailto:n764jm@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 12:53 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] O-200 cooling

< snip >

There appears to be some black magic going on here.
Justin

Re: high speed taxi

David J. Gall

Neil,

You say your templates are a "loose" fit; if the contour on the upper
surface of the canard from the leading edge back to the maximum thickness is
incorrect or rough or disturbed by even something as small as a paint line,
dirt, bug spooge, or visible moisture, it will severely compromise the
amount of lift that the canard can generate (old-style GU canard).

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen [mailto:jepsen@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Hi Paul
Beacuse the plans templates are a "loose" fit on my
wings, and by rocking them back and forth, I can get any angle I wish
(within reason), so if I make the templates fit the wings, how do I know
they are correct, without referencing back to the chord ? You see my
dilemma.
neil

Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>

Hi Paul
Beacuse the plans templates are a "loose" fit on my
wings, and by rocking them back and forth, I can get any angle I wish
(within reason), so if I make the templates fit the wings, how do I know
they are correct, without referencing back to the chord ? You see my
dilemma.
neil

Paul Buckley wrote:

Neil
Surely you don't need to know the cord line in order to find your
angle of
incidence.
Why don't you just make templates with the level lines marked as per
the
original, fit them to the airfoil in the appropriate positions and
then
compare them with the fuselage level line. If the aircraft has been
assembled as per the plans, then the level lines should all be the
same. If
the canard has been glassed in place with an extra degree or two of
incidence, then this will be shown by the extra 'incidence' of its
level
line. It will also confirm the difference, if any, between the canard
and
the main wing, and this would be a much more useful piece of
information for
you.
Paul Buckley
TriQ-200, 95% finished, 95% to go!
Cheshire, England

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Now I'm glad you mentioned that Mike. HOW????
Today I got my "smart level" with 0.1degree resolution, and
attempted to
do just that. Bearing in mind I don't have the original wing
templates,
and its a total waste of time making some to fit the wing, because
you
can make any chord line you like. For the main wing, I took a point
midway on the leading edge and midway on the trailing edge, just
outboard of the aileron. I assumed the chord joined these two points
and
measured the angle of the chord in deg to the horizontal. It was1
.4deg
with the A/C water line level.
Now to the cannard. Now how do I find and measure the chord line of
the
canard.? For starters the top is curved and the botton is flat.
Secondly
there is an elevator stuck to to the trailing edge...how do I find
the
centre of the trailing edge, and does the chord line in fact pass
thru
the centre of the leading and trailing edges. ??! As a matter of
interest, the "almost "flat bottom of the cannard was at about 0deg
relative to the horizontal. That means my cannard "may" be at the
wrong
angle!
neil

Mike Dwyer wrote:

May want to recheck your angle of attack on the wings also.
Mike Q-200
----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Jepsen
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: high speed taxi

Some weeks ago, I reported that my Q2 was almost uncontrollable
on
the
ground during fast taxi ( 60 mph). Well I'm pleased to report
that
after
loweruing the tail wheel authority by adding 1.5" to the
tailwheel
bellcrank ( on the tailwheel itself) and returning the angle of
the
tail
wheel hinge pin to plans angle ( at right angles to the spring
and
therefore in my mind, totally at the wrong angle to the ground)
yesterday I did several 60 - 70 mph runs and at last felt as
though
I
could land this thing without ending up in the weeds.
However
I still have a problem I think. The tail wheel
lifts at

about 65 - 70mph in spite of full tail-down T trim and full back
stick,
and once the tail is up, it stays up until the speed drops to
55
mph. I know, I know: where is my C of G I hear you ask. Well
at
the
last measurement, it was in the rear half of the envelope, but I
will
re-measure it today, as well as measuring the angle of the wing
and
cannard.
watch this pace.
neil

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Image]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

Re: high speed taxi

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>

Same result fully back or fully fwd

kittleson1@... wrote:

Neil,

"what concerns me is that the canard showed no sign of lifting or
getting
light even at 80mph."

Where was your elevator positioned in this condition?

Al

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:07:20 +1300 Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
writes:
Your'e correct Chris. The ailerons are already slightly up at the
rear
edge, by about 1/4". what concerns me is that the canard showed no
sign
of lifting or getting light even at 80mph.
neil

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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