1. main@Q-List.groups.io
  2. Messages
   Date   
Re: Axle locations

Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

I have to agree with Mike on the laser being more trouble than it is
worth. I am redrilling my wheelpants after remounting the right one and
finding the left one lining up on the leading edge of the opposite wheelpant
right under the canard when eyeballed (and lasered) through the axle.
I turned down a couple of aluminum bushings to fit finger tight in the
axle and found some phenolic tubing with 3/8" outside and 1/8"inside dia.
that fits inside the aluminum bushings. This assembly dials out at less than
.001 on the lathe, yet when installed I can move the beam at least five
inches in all directions at the opposite wheelpant. Inserting a brass tube
with a 1/16" bore gets it down to about three inches which is still
unacceptable. I'm going to sight it first and then use a string for final
checking. Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 2:54 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Axle locations


In 1985 my axle holes were set to sight an inch and a half forward of each
other at gross (the Gall numbers? = toe out and no camber @ gross). After
15 years the canard creeped enough to be about 3 degrees camber - see
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1653/r2.html

The ground handling slowly degraded to the point where at 3 degrees I
could still fly and land but it was touchier.

Using the laser was a pain, it was easier to just sight down the axel
holes.

Mike, Q-200






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Re: Axle locations

L Koutz <koutzl@...>
 

So Mike at gross did you just sight through the axle holes without the
centering bolt to check alignment?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Dwyer" <mdwyer@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 3:54 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Axle locations


In 1985 my axle holes were set to sight an inch and a half forward of each
other at gross (the Gall numbers? = toe out and no camber @ gross). After
15 years the canard creeped enough to be about 3 degrees camber - see
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1653/r2.html

The ground handling slowly degraded to the point where at 3 degrees I
could still fly and land but it was touchier.

Using the laser was a pain, it was easier to just sight down the axel
holes.

Mike, Q-200
Re: original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD

Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

Yeah, those original spars were filament wound on a lathe... not exactly
home shop machinery! Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: <BD5ER@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA
LS(1)-0417 MOD


In a message dated 10/1/00 8:29:20 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
pentam@...
writes:

<< Is this not the case? If it is the fact that the second airfoil
(or perhaps an even more recent one) fixes such a hazardous
problem (never mind the benefits of less drag), why don't
people abandon the bandaids and do "the correct thing"?

Or should I assume that anyone today building Quickies
does use the NASA canard airfoil, and the only people
discussing the VG (vortex generators) are the people who
have decided against building new canards for their older
Quickies? >>
====================================
I think the analogy of make-up vs plastic surgery is a better one here
than a Band-Aid. There are lots of Q's built and probably still being
built
with the "old" canard and if all it takes is a little make-up (VG's) to
make
it pretty then maybe this is the best way to go.
If you are going to start fresh then the "new" canard is the one to
use
(and even this in my opinion is a Band-Aid, (but that is a matter for
another
discussion) but the only readily available plans use the pre-made carbon
fiber spars and they are getting hard and harder to find. You could try
to
make them yourself but unless you are a better than average builder you
probably won't end up with anything useable. It takes very good control
of
fiber orientation and resin/fiber ratio to take full advantage of this
material and this doesn't even take into consideration that there is a lot
of
"surplus" fabric floating around that is not compatible with the resin
systems most homebuilders might use. Without this level of quality control
you might as well use standard "E" glass.

"Think outside the box - but fly in the envelope"
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/bd5er/Qpage.html">Q-2 page</A>
Leon McAtee


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
two sources for carbon fibre spars

Doug Fortune <pentam@...>
 

BD5ER@... wrote:

If you are going to start fresh then the "new" canard is the one to use
(and even this in my opinion is a Band-Aid, (but that is a matter for another
discussion) but the only readily available plans use the pre-made carbon
fiber spars and they are getting hard and harder to find. You could try to
make them yourself but unless you are a better than average builder you
probably won't end up with anything useable. It takes very good control of
fiber orientation and resin/fiber ratio to take full advantage of this
material and this doesn't even take into consideration that there is a lot of
"surplus" fabric floating around that is not compatible with the resin
systems most homebuilders might use. Without this level of quality control
you might as well use standard "E" glass.
Reading this and previous posts, I get the feeling that the group feels
carbon fibre spars are difficult to source.

As recently as Jan 19/1999, both of the following companies
have made carbon fibre spars for aircraft:

Gordon Plastics 800-575-5771

Composiflex nc.
8100 Hawthorne Dr.
Erie, PA 16509
Tel: 800/673-2544 814/833-8141
Fax: 814/866-0563

E-mail: nbp.@...
Description:
Specializes in creating components based on advanced
composites such as carbon fiber, Spectra, Kevlar, and
fiberglass.

Doug Fortune
Re: original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD

Ed MacLeod <ed@...>
 

Thanks Dave for the GU lesson. Good stuff.

Ed m
Re: original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD

L Koutz <koutzl@...>
 

Doug
There is nothing wrong with the Gu25 WITH VG's.
It is a cheap and easy fix to loss of laminar flow that occcurs with any
debris on the canard.
From my viewpoint you either have the VG's or you are going to scare
yourself -REALLY BAD sometime or other flying with that wing. There is
nothing sacred with placement. I have seen the VG's several places,
different spacing, size etc. Some people are discussing that subject. And
there is a "recommended" place for them. But these planes ARE called
Experimental so adventuresome individuals try different placements. Nuff
said, but just my opinion ( and 15 years of listening) as I don't own one
and have never flown one.

The LS-1 is different.
It does not need VG's to fly OK.
But I am trying to fix a problem that most drivers don't even know they
have. In my plane there is a loss of lift from the top of the elevator when
the elevator goes down even the least little bit. I figure if I can get the
lift back I can land slower, and GOD knows we could use a plane that lands
slower. Plane flys OK but I want more. It's not a problem.
It's just that a few of us want to know how the airflow is traveling over
the canard and don't really know how to figure it out and really all the
canards are similar but not EXACTLY the same so everyone's flows are
slightly different. Anyway, it is not a PROBLEM. We are just trying to
figure airflow out for optimum speed. We are Experimenting! Just my
thoughts.
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Fortune" <pentam@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 10:20 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA
LS(1)-0417 MOD


A newbie question:

This rain & bug problem with the original Glasgow University
GU25-5(11)8 airfoil canard was supposed to be fixed with
the new 1981 NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD airfoil. (See Homebuilt
Aircraft Magazine March 1984 page 34).

Is this not the case? If it is the fact that the second airfoil
(or perhaps an even more recent one) fixes such a hazardous
problem (never mind the benefits of less drag), why don't
people abandon the bandaids and do "the correct thing"?

Or should I assume that anyone today building Quickies
does use the NASA canard airfoil, and the only people
discussing the VG (vortex generators) are the people who
have decided against building new canards for their older
Quickies?

Doug





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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Re: GU Canard Wax

David J. Gall
 

Jim,

Isn't "pupating" something that caterpillars do? :-)

I've always been a fan of the Farnum tailwheel and the LaRue brakes. These
are, without a doubt, the best ways to accomplish these two tasks. I didn't
think it was necessary to "include" them in my alignment suggestion, because
I was not trying to catalog everything into a single be-all end-all fix. I
was trying to explain a cause-effect relationship and explore a solution.
Certainly, people should address other issues like brakes and tailwheel
geometry besides just the alignment when attempting to fix a squirrely
airplane.

I don't understand why you think this is an either/or situation, or what
thinking leads you to suggest that my alignment procedure somehow "masks"
some other problem. There are many issues to be addressed on these
airplanes. Some of them interact. Your agenda seems to be an exclusionary
one, and I don't know why. We're both trying to solve the same problem, and
we're both bringing useful tools to the shop. The guys at Tire Kingdom
always seem to be trying to sell me new brakes AND new tires AND new shocks
AND an alignment AND a steering dampener -- how come at your airplane shop
it seems to be an alignment OR those other four things, preferably the
latter??

Just "chrysalising,"


David J. Gall
P.S. It would be interesting to know

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Patillo" <patillo@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


Jon,

Thanks for the page and you bring up good points. I don't recall you
asking for input but may have missed your page. Here goes.

Specifically Bob and I have installed toe brakes, full swiveling tail
wheel, reflex and La Rue Brake Mod, which makes these airplanes very very
tame! We set our axle with canard upside down sighting through the axle
holes and installed per LS-1 canard plans (sighting forward on inside of
opposite wheel pant for the hole location). About a year ago, I drew a
string through all four holes of my axles, stretched tight with the canard
upside down and the measurements were same as first time I did the
installation. When loaded, the wheels will splay out just like most other
loaded airplanes.

The toe brakes keep you straight down the runway, maintaining control at
all times while freeing your hands for other things. The swiveling tail
wheel with Farnum Bellcrank mod (internal springs on mine) keeps the tail
wheel centered, absorbs shock, does not skid as easily and allows for
rotations on one wheel when turning in tight spaces. Everybody knows the
reflexor simply puts pressure on the tail wheel for added control when
landing. The La Rue brake mod smooths the "foot feel" and quality and
equally applies the pucks without binding and seems to stop the airplane
faster.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pupating the Gall Mod, I simply suggest there
may be other reasons why a persons AC needs the Mod and might want to look
further for the reason first rather than covering it up with something else.
Failing to accomplish that task then the Mod might seem appropriate and
otherwise helpful. However, I still don't think camber has much to do with
the initial "bad handling airplane" and would suggest that new builders
make the mods we describe, go taxi and if not happy, then do the Gall Mod
if necessary. You might be surprised, you could just be " lucky like me and
BOB ".
Re: "unstick test"

DClark <dclark3@...>
 

I fly the Quickie (single place) with the LS-1 canard. One of a few that
have this canard.

The original factory advice for lift off was use full aft stick with the GU
canard.

I purchased the spars and plans, then QAC went belly up.

When I did my taxi test I was looking for this squirrelly behavior we all
are supposed to have. Didn't happen.
I used the limited RPM approach to do the tests.
After feeling the plane get light on all wheels, I increased the revs by
200.
Using full aft stick like QAC had suggested, I trundled down the runway.
I felt things get light----- the next thing I saw was blue sky and nothing
else!
The aircraft was hanging on the prop at 20 feet with a nose up angle of
better
than 30 degrees. ( I have a picture) Knowing better than giving most of
the feeble lift I had by cutting the throttle, I shoved it to the max and
slowly
eased the stick forward. By the time I had real flying speed the end of the
5000 ft runway slid beneath my canard.

I "suppose" the GU canard has a progressive airflow attachment, in other
words it just levitates as the factory literature claims.

The LS-1 airflow attaches rapidly, one minute you have no lift then next you
have it all.

I received some guff about using full aft stick but I had not read or heard
about
any other procedure. I assumed it would be a gentle procedure. Mid stick
make for a better lift off in my opinion.

Oh yeah. The canard saved my bacon that day, a conventional aircraft would
have stalled and put me face first into the pavement.

But then again I wouldn't have used the silly full aft stick procedure in a
conventional
bird.

Be careful on your unstick test.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>

The Q-200 seems to stall at lift off when the power is pulled. I actually
think the plane lifts off below stall speed cause the prop is blowing all
that air. Pull the power and your going down NOW! I usually lift off,
accelerate to 120mph then climb. If your gonna try an unstick test you
better be real good!
Mike Dwyer, Q-200

----- Original Message -----
From: <kittleson1@...>
Mr. Postma,

It sounds like you advocate the use of this "unstick test" in the flying
of the single seat Quickie, at least I think that is the plane you are
using....It may work fine.

Based upon flying the Q200, I don't really advocate trying to do this in
the Q200, especially on the first flight.

I can see some merit to it if a person is experimenting with the
airfoils
and really has some serious questions about the stability of the plane
based upon the change the has occured, but if you're going to do it in
the Q200, you had better be really familiar with the airplane.

Pulling the power off after breaking ground in the Q200, and attempting
to land immediately is one of the scariest things I've seen in the past
23 years of flying. It can be a wild event, even in a plane that
normally flies well.

It may be cool in the Quickie, perhaps more stick authority and docile
characteristics, but not in my Q200.

The idea of getting airborne and putting it back on the ground again is
an old one...especially in new designs or making wild changes, where
there is some "reasonable doubt"

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:19:12 -0700 "James Postma" <james@...>
writes:
Thanks Jon,

This is precisely what I was saying. I covered the "unstick test"
in a
previous email. I recommend going to lift off speed at low power
settings
and once the canard lifts off, pull the throttle and let it settle
back.
The point is to note the lift off speed, not to make it fly.
Re: QBA Builders List updated

David J. Gall
 

Tom,

I've moved! Sorry I didn't notify you before the big update. Please send my
future newsletters to:

David J. Gall
3876 Heritage Oaks Ct.
Oviedo, FL 32765


Thanks!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Moore" <qba321tm@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:57 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] QBA Builders List updated


Guys,

I just updated the QBA builders list on the web site. If you sent in
your info, you should be on there. If your not, let me know and I'll
get it done.

http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html

Tom Moore



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Re: Axle locations

David J. Gall
 

Thanks for the testimonial, Mike. Yes, those are sure close enough to be
"the Gall numbers." I guess I'll have to start calling 'em the "Dwyer
numbers" since you did it first. I always kinda suspected.... :-)


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Dwyer" <mdwyer@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 3:54 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Axle locations


In 1985 my axle holes were set to sight an inch and a half forward of each
other at gross (the Gall numbers? = toe out and no camber @ gross). After
15 years the canard creeped enough to be about 3 degrees camber - see
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1653/r2.html

The ground handling slowly degraded to the point where at 3 degrees I
could still fly and land but it was touchier.

Using the laser was a pain, it was easier to just sight down the axel
holes.

Mike, Q-200






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Re: Oil coolers @ other things!

Archer Family <blues@...>
 

Just guessing here of course, but I'm guessing maybe the plane had been
sitting in the sun (soaking a little heat, fuel a little warm), you did your
runup (really getting warm under the cowl now) you pull back to idle for a
short time (taxi to position, very little airflow over those nice warm
jugs), fuel starts percolating somewhere in the line under the cowl, as you
advance the throttle on a full bowl of fuel in the carb. Meanwhile she's
running fine for a short while on that fuel in the carb. Then she starts
getting lean because of the vapor lock and the fuel level is getting low in
the carb. Maybe a little fuel starts to flow as the airflow begins cooling
the line back down a bit. Closing the throttle and then hitting it again
would work the accelerator pump which should still pump if there is any fuel
left in the bowl. If you have a primer installed you may could have tried
it and if the lock were upstream from the gascolator where your primer
probably picks up fuel then you may have gotten surges with the primer
action. Auto fuel may have a lower vapor pressure and thus more prone to
vapor lock as well. Pressurizing the fuel line some way (boost pump on take
off) may also help alleviate any vapor lock tendencies. Again, just an
idea, hope you solve it. Bill Archer

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Patillo" <patillo@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 10:12 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Oil coolers @ other things!


Q GROUP,

I installed a Positech oil filter (from Van's Aircraft for their 0320's)
in line with my El Reno filter last week and it really helped. The
temperature today was at close to 100F and steady climbs could never get the
oil temp over 215 degrees F. Before installing the cooler my temps would
have easily been hovering around 240 all the time. It is a little labor
intensive but well worth the time.

On a side note. Today when I went flying at close to 100 degrees, the
strangest thing happened. I taxied to the runup area and did a complete
runup. Took off and at about 50' the engine went from 2600 RPM's to 1800
RPM's and ran rough! Makes ones butt pucker! I pulled the carb heat and
nothing happened. Pulled the throttle and repowered and got about 2200 RPM.
Did it once again and it went to full power. Of course I was completely out
of runway at that point. Made a standard pattern return and full power down
the runway at about 50'. No problems so I went up to 6,000' and flew around
for about an hour with no other engine runnig rough problems.

Back ground! I have a gascolator which is shielded with forced air blowing
on it. Went back to hangar and looked at all filters in cluding the small
one in the carb, did a fuel flow at 24 gallons at the carb, checked the vent
line and came up with nothing. Has any one else experienced this! Besides
being a little disconcerting I am still in the dark as to what could have
happened but I don't want to do it again. Any suggestions.

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP







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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
QBA Builders List updated

Tom Moore <qba321tm@...>
 

Guys,

I just updated the QBA builders list on the web site. If you sent in
your info, you should be on there. If your not, let me know and I'll
get it done.

http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html

Tom Moore
New Photos on QBA Web site

Tom Moore <qba321tm@...>
 

Guys,

Bud Starnes sent in some photos of his MATCO break installation.

http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html

I hope to see everybody in Ottawa,

Tom Moore
Re: Oil coolers @ other things!

Bruce Crain
 

Jim,
If you have the Electro-air electronic ignition and the pickup is on the
front prop flange I would strongly suggest that you shield the pickup
where it plugs together on top of the engine. It is shielded in the
wiring but not at the plug in set up. Also separating the plug wiring is
important but only where the 2 different "towers" wiring crosses one
another. Jeff suggests a specific spark plug that's different from when
he 1st started marketing his ignition. Bob Malecek and I both had to
"tweek" our electronic ignitions because they would suddenly run rough
and loose rpm for a short time and we thought we were having "other
problems". I found some screen door screen and used it for shielding the
pickup plug. Haven't had a problem since. If you don't have an
electronic ignition I have "shot my wad" for nothing. Let me and the Q
list know so the info gets passed on.

Bruce Crain

P.S.- If you can find a way to check the ignition switch to see if moving
or jiggling it causes it to run rough it might help.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:12:45 -0700 "James Patillo" <patillo@...>
writes:
Q GROUP,

I installed a Positech oil filter (from Van's Aircraft for their
0320's) in line with my El Reno filter last week and it really helped.
The temperature today was at close to 100F and steady climbs could
never get the oil temp over 215 degrees F. Before installing the
cooler my temps would have easily been hovering around 240 all the
time. It is a little labor intensive but well worth the time.

On a side note. Today when I went flying at close to 100 degrees, the
strangest thing happened. I taxied to the runup area and did a
complete runup. Took off and at about 50' the engine went from 2600
RPM's to 1800 RPM's and ran rough! Makes ones butt pucker! I pulled
the carb heat and nothing happened. Pulled the throttle and repowered
and got about 2200 RPM. Did it once again and it went to full power.
Of course I was completely out of runway at that point. Made a
standard pattern return and full power down the runway at about 50'.
No problems so I went up to 6,000' and flew around for about an hour
with no other engine runnig rough problems.

Back ground! I have a gascolator which is shielded with forced air
blowing on it. Went back to hangar and looked at all filters in
cluding the small one in the carb, did a fuel flow at 24 gallons at
the carb, checked the vent line and came up with nothing. Has any one
else experienced this! Besides being a little disconcerting I am still
in the dark as to what could have happened but I don't want to do it
again. Any suggestions.

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP






-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor

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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Re: original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Doug,

It boils down to this:

Old GU canard; install vortex generators.

New LS canard, vortex generators are not required.

Some people are still installing the GU canards for various reasons, but
it's best to get the LS. If you have to spend a grand or so for a set of
carbon spars, get 'em.


Sam Hoskins,
Lots of years and hours in my LS Q-200



Doug Fortune wrote:

A newbie question:

This rain & bug problem with the original Glasgow University
GU25-5(11)8 airfoil canard was supposed to be fixed with
the new 1981 NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD airfoil. (See Homebuilt
Aircraft Magazine March 1984 page 34).

Is this not the case? If it is the fact that the second airfoil
(or perhaps an even more recent one) fixes such a hazardous
problem (never mind the benefits of less drag), why don't
people abandon the bandaids and do "the correct thing"?

Or should I assume that anyone today building Quickies
does use the NASA canard airfoil, and the only people
discussing the VG (vortex generators) are the people who
have decided against building new canards for their older
Quickies?

Doug


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Re: Oil coolers @ other things!

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Ditto for me on the fuel cap. I had the same thing happen to me. Make sure
that your cap is sealed. It does not need a vent hole, either. Venting is
supplied by the ram air to the header tank.

If you are using the factory supplied plastic bottle, throw it away and figure
out a better way, before your next flight.

Sam


Mike Dwyer wrote:

I fly at near 100F all the time. No gascolator tho. I did have my fuel cap
crack once and the engine would loose power at full settings and come back
when I reduced power. Figured the ram air was needed for me to get full
fuel flow (1/4" lines) wonder if that happened to you. I think the fuel cap
is in a low pressure area.

Mike, Q-200

----- Original Message -----
From: James Patillo <patillo@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 11:12 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Oil coolers @ other things!

Q GROUP,

I installed a Positech oil filter (from Van's Aircraft for their 0320's)
in line with my El Reno filter last week and it really helped. The
temperature today was at close to 100F and steady climbs could never get the
oil temp over 215 degrees F. Before installing the cooler my temps would
have easily been hovering around 240 all the time. It is a little labor
intensive but well worth the time.

On a side note. Today when I went flying at close to 100 degrees, the
strangest thing happened. I taxied to the runup area and did a complete
runup. Took off and at about 50' the engine went from 2600 RPM's to 1800
RPM's and ran rough! Makes ones butt pucker! I pulled the carb heat and
nothing happened. Pulled the throttle and repowered and got about 2200 RPM.
Did it once again and it went to full power. Of course I was completely out
of runway at that point. Made a standard pattern return and full power down
the runway at about 50'. No problems so I went up to 6,000' and flew around
for about an hour with no other engine runnig rough problems.

Back ground! I have a gascolator which is shielded with forced air blowing
on it. Went back to hangar and looked at all filters in cluding the small
one in the carb, did a fuel flow at 24 gallons at the carb, checked the vent
line and came up with nothing. Has any one else experienced this! Besides
being a little disconcerting I am still in the dark as to what could have
happened but I don't want to do it again. Any suggestions.

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP







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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Re: original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD

Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

Is this not the case? If it is the fact that the second airfoil
(or perhaps an even more recent one) fixes such a hazardous
problem (never mind the benefits of less drag), why don't
people abandon the bandaids and do "the correct thing"?
The GU airfoil isn't quite the dead dog you think it is. Compared
to the alternative airfoils it actually has some advantages. A properly
built shaped and finished GU will actually produce more lift with
far less drag than the others. The problem is of course it is sensative
to dead bugs and rain. The two easy fixes I know about were
simply a matt sanded finish, and VG generators. If you look at some
other threads some people have information that a coat of wax will
cure it as well. If these are bandaid fixes they definatly are cheaper than
building a new canard and control system. You don't throw out a set of
tires because they need air...?

The following are numbers from windtunnel runs. The first is the GU, the
second
was another canard airfoil, Third is Roncz 1145RM, 4th is the LS, and
the last is the Amsoil racer airfoil. The first set of data is the airfoil
in a cruise
attitude (sort of anyway), the second set shows the results of deflecting the
elevator 15°.

Airfoil Lift Drag Moment
Gu 0.9857 0.0057 -0.1189
UA79S 0.9635 0.0071 -0.1503
1145RM 0.7417 0.0084 -0.0551
LS417M 0.8598 0.0094 -0.1078
Amsoil 0.6036 0.0098 -0.0559

25% Chord Flap deflected 15°
Airfoil Lift Drag Moment
Gu 2.119 0.0060 -0.3174
UA79S 2.105 0.0192 -0.3618
1145RM 2.075 0.0132 -0.2657**
LS417M 2.015 0.0133 -0.3040
Amsoil 1.746 0.0187 -0.2593

**33% chord


Constants:
3° alpha
1500000 Reynolds
27" Chord
Std Temp/Pressure etc etc.

As you can see the GU actually holds it own when compared to the others. I
was kinda suprised to see how well. The NLF/GAW and Roncz have thier own
quirks. They generate much higher control loads onto structure etc. The
1145 will produce
a slightly higher ultimate lift compared to the GU which means you can use
a smaller
canard to compensate but it won't be drastically faster.


Dave
Re: Oil coolers @ other things!

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

I fly at near 100F all the time. No gascolator tho. I did have my fuel cap
crack once and the engine would loose power at full settings and come back
when I reduced power. Figured the ram air was needed for me to get full
fuel flow (1/4" lines) wonder if that happened to you. I think the fuel cap
is in a low pressure area.

Mike, Q-200

----- Original Message -----
From: James Patillo <patillo@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 11:12 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Oil coolers @ other things!


Q GROUP,

I installed a Positech oil filter (from Van's Aircraft for their 0320's)
in line with my El Reno filter last week and it really helped. The
temperature today was at close to 100F and steady climbs could never get the
oil temp over 215 degrees F. Before installing the cooler my temps would
have easily been hovering around 240 all the time. It is a little labor
intensive but well worth the time.

On a side note. Today when I went flying at close to 100 degrees, the
strangest thing happened. I taxied to the runup area and did a complete
runup. Took off and at about 50' the engine went from 2600 RPM's to 1800
RPM's and ran rough! Makes ones butt pucker! I pulled the carb heat and
nothing happened. Pulled the throttle and repowered and got about 2200 RPM.
Did it once again and it went to full power. Of course I was completely out
of runway at that point. Made a standard pattern return and full power down
the runway at about 50'. No problems so I went up to 6,000' and flew around
for about an hour with no other engine runnig rough problems.

Back ground! I have a gascolator which is shielded with forced air blowing
on it. Went back to hangar and looked at all filters in cluding the small
one in the carb, did a fuel flow at 24 gallons at the carb, checked the vent
line and came up with nothing. Has any one else experienced this! Besides
being a little disconcerting I am still in the dark as to what could have
happened but I don't want to do it again. Any suggestions.

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP







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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Axle locations

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

In 1985 my axle holes were set to sight an inch and a half forward of each other at gross (the Gall numbers? = toe out and no camber @ gross). After 15 years the canard creeped enough to be about 3 degrees camber - see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1653/r2.html

The ground handling slowly degraded to the point where at 3 degrees I could still fly and land but it was touchier.

Using the laser was a pain, it was easier to just sight down the axel holes.

Mike, Q-200
Re: "unstick test"

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

The Q-200 seems to stall at lift off when the power is pulled. I actually
think the plane lifts off below stall speed cause the prop is blowing all
that air. Pull the power and your going down NOW! I usually lift off,
accelerate to 120mph then climb. If your gonna try an unstick test you
better be real good!
Mike Dwyer, Q-200

----- Original Message -----
From: <kittleson1@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] "unstick test"


Mr. Postma,

It sounds like you advocate the use of this "unstick test" in the flying
of the single seat Quickie, at least I think that is the plane you are
using....It may work fine.

Based upon flying the Q200, I don't really advocate trying to do this in
the Q200, especially on the first flight.

I can see some merit to it if a person is experimenting with the airfoils
and really has some serious questions about the stability of the plane
based upon the change the has occured, but if you're going to do it in
the Q200, you had better be really familiar with the airplane.

Pulling the power off after breaking ground in the Q200, and attempting
to land immediately is one of the scariest things I've seen in the past
23 years of flying. It can be a wild event, even in a plane that
normally flies well.

It may be cool in the Quickie, perhaps more stick authority and docile
characteristics, but not in my Q200.

The idea of getting airborne and putting it back on the ground again is
an old one...especially in new designs or making wild changes, where
there is some "reasonable doubt"

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:19:12 -0700 "James Postma" <james@...>
writes:
Thanks Jon,

This is precisely what I was saying. I covered the "unstick test"
in a
previous email. I recommend going to lift off speed at low power
settings
and once the canard lifts off, pull the throttle and let it settle
back.
The point is to note the lift off speed, not to make it fly.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
56061 - 56080 of 56547