Date   
(No subject)

sambloc <sam@...>
 

Thanks to everyone for the responses to my questions ,

Mike did you know later model 13b's have lighter weight rotating assemblies , also
alloy water pump housings . The series 4 is decompressed and the series 5 is high
compression . They both have much higher quality rotor housings , crome/moly
( I think) surfaces instead of the crome plated steel ones in the earlier motors .
The standard port opening and all the after market ports I have seen are not very kind to the
side and apex seals . Observe the area on the side housing just above the port ,
there is always a shiny little nick where the side seal closes . This causes premature
blowby , and can be eliminated with the correct port profile .
With the swiss cheesy looking rotor inners , Check for possible oil supply problems .
some bozoes like to remove the springs and ball bearings from the oil jets in the ecc
shaft .
I cut my teeth on an RX2 as well , 95000 miles worth .When putting headers on any
rotary there should be an increase in both top and bottom end power .
If only the top end increased this would suggest your pipe dia was too large . What type of
port job , header length and dia was your RX2 ?
Will you be running a water temp themostat?
You can plug the water bypass remove the thermo and increase cooling , make sure you
put a wire coil in the bottom radiator hose to avoid the water pump sucking it flat .
Thats one thing less that can go wrong .
Have you seen some of the smaller rotes available through Wankel and Midwest ,
They are around 50kgs with redrive giving 70 horse , offering a choice of fuels even
diesel . That would have to satisfy the fuel misers .
Per horspower the wankel would use very little more fuel than pistons , and according to
Mike Dwyer less at cruise revs .
Yes I have heard of Tracy Crooks EMS's and redrives , by all accounts very good systems .

Seeya Sammy

AVALON AIRSHOW VISIT BY SAM HOSKINS

John Cartledge <urecomps@...>
 

Sam,
Sorry I accidently deleted your original e-mail so could not
reply more directly.
I would be more than delighted to meet you and show you my 170 hr Q200
VH-LOQ at this big airshow. My best guess is that you are flying in to
Avalon with the invited US military.
I will be flying in there on Fri 16 Feb, camping and leaving
Sun evening 18 Feb.Cellphone 0419 883123. Before Fri phone Melbourne
95512718 or 97947955 during working hrs.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Happy
landings John Cartledge

Re: Steve Whiteside/ now Danel Estes and/or Patricia Wright

Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>
 

Thanks Larry
Danel Estes and Patricia Wright were, maybe still are, building a Tri-Q 200
with a Waddelow canard. I would like to know if they made any mods to the
canard, did they load test it and, most especially, has it flown yet !
What would be really useful is an e-mail address for him/her/them !!

Paul Buckley

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Koutz <koutzl@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Steve Whiteside


Paul
Looking at my handy Q aircraft database I found several names that might
work for you.

Danel Estes Arlington, Texas 817-467-0373
T.J. Wright Friedens, Pennsylvania 814-445-2460
Ross Wright Canyon Country, California 805-252-0801

What information are you wanting from them?

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>
To: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Steve Whiteside


Dave Richardson and Bruce Crain

On looking through my back copies of 'Q-Talk', in issue #14,
March/April
1989 I see there is a letter from a Danel Estes [# 2872] and Patricia J.
Wright, where they write about the building of their Tri-Q 200 and
mention
that the canard is of the Waddelow variety !
Any chance that Dave could find contact numbers for these two ?
Many thanks
Paul Buckley

----- Original Message -----
From: The Bruce Crains <@q2bruce>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:00 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Steve Whiteside


Sorry Paul Buckley,
Steve Whiteside's e-mail address came back as undeliverable. He must
have a new address or something

Bruce Crain

________________________________________________________________
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/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



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



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



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


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



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


Re: Waddelow Canard

Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>
 

Bruce
I have the plans and constructional notes for the 'Waddelow' canard but I
will have to photo-copy them as I don't have a scanner, and send them snail
mail. This may take a couple of weeks.
Essentially the canard is laid up the same way as the main wing with the
following differences :-

No dihedral [or anhedral !]
All spar caps longer and tapered
Extra spar cap on upper surface
Extra shear-web from BL15 to BL 57 at 30% cord
Main shear web at 60% cord [the carbon spar is at 55% cord]
Main shearweb reinforced
Glass ribs at BL 15
Cordwise reinforcing strips, 6" wide, on top surface at BL 16
Slightly different planform to simplify cutting cores and fitting elevators

.......and that's about it !
It should be noted that this canard is for the Tri-Q only, whereas the Larry
Weishaar and Jim
Doyle canard would appear to be good for the tail dragger.

Paul Buckley

----- Original Message -----
From: The Bruce Crains <@q2bruce>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Waddelow Canard


Does anyone have the Waddelow carbon fiberless canard plans? Pictures
are good to. Ah likes pitchurs.
Bruce Crain

________________________________________________________________
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/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



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


Re: Waddelow Canard

Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>
 

Bruce
My PC is acting up ! Did you get my mail of a few minutes ago listing
the 'Waddelow' canard constructional differences ?
What kind of pics are you thinking of ? An LS1 canard is an LS1
canard,...they all look the same !
On the other hand, I have plenty of girlie pics [ all in good taste !],
courtesy of Gene Cash !!
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: The Bruce Crains <@q2bruce>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Waddelow Canard


Does anyone have the Waddelow carbon fiberless canard plans? Pictures
are good to. Ah likes pitchurs.
Bruce Crain

________________________________________________________________
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/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



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


Re: Porpeller data sheet (56D/45P) Neil Jepsen

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
 

Boy oh boy Justin,, at a glance that prop is sure out of balance. For instance, at the 75% mark, one blade has a 45.5" pitch and the
other blade is 56" ! It gets worse as the distance gets out. I don't know how significant these errors are but they would seem so. I'll
go measure one of my props this afternoon, and report back tomorrow.
neil

Robert Justin wrote:

Hope this data is helpful in identifying your RPM problem. Also, if the data dose not display well send me your e-mail address and
I will sent the data to you as a attached speadsheet.

Remarks: Reference starting point is at the propeller center with the first readings being taken at the

7 inch point.
COWLEY PROPELLER DATA






56D/45P





FROM HUB TO TIP 1
ACTUAL
SHOULD BE
ACTUAL
FROM HUB TO TIP 2



IN INCHES
IN DEGREES
IN DEGREES
IN DEGREES
IN INCHES



7
45
45.7
45
7



8
41
41.9
41
8



9
38
38.6
38
9



10
33
35.7
32
10



11
33
33.7
32
11



12
30
31
31
12



13
29
29.6
30
13



14
28
27
30
14



15
27
25
30
15



16
27
24.1
28
16



17
25
22.7
25
17



18
25
21.6
25
18



19
24
20.6
24
19



20
22
19.6
23
20



21
19
18.8
23
21
75% point


22
20
18
22
22



23
19
17.3
22
23



24
20
16.6
22
24



25
19
16
24
25



26
18
15.4
23
26



27
17
14.9
20
27



28
16
14.3
25
28






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[www.debticated.com]


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

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

test

qba321tm@...
 

test 1

Q Performance List Announcement

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Hi all,

I'm pleased to report that a new list now exists for the sole purpose of
discussing performance enhancements for our Q's. This list is NOT for
general Q discussion (that is the purpose of the Q-List). Topics related to
making the Q go faster, less draggy, or more efficient will be discussed on
the Q-Performance list. This means that most things discussed on this new
list will be items that are NOT per-plans.

If you are still building your Q, I strongly encourage you to build the
airplane per plans and learn to fly it that way. The one sure way to never
finish/fly your airplane is to stray from the plans. If you are flying and
would like to discuss increasing your performance, this list is for you.

Here are the details:
Subscribe: Q-Performance-subscribe@...
Post message: Q-Performance@...
Unsubscribe: Q-Performance-unsubscribe@...
URL to this page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Q-Performance
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html

Re: test

Tom Moore <qba321tm@...>
 

Test number two

2345

sdfgg

Re: Canard mounting

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster. Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going wild (side to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately determine if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar with what it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail which
could be masking my problem.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html



Re: Canard mounting

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Sam, Mike, Larry,

Thanks for the input. Since my plane doesn't exhibit the behavior you guys
are talking about I suspect my templates are not accurate. I will work on
this, get a digital level, and report back.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L Koutz [mailto:koutzl@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:22 AM
To: QBA@...
Subject: Re: Canard mounting


Jon
I'm with Sam on this if the Canard is mounted as you said "canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)" then
the airplane
lifts will not be balanced according to the weight distribution. I had a
plane like that.

The quick solution:
Fly around with full (or nearly full) aft stick. OR
Reflex the ailerons up- a lot! (about 30 degrees to the
streamlined setting)
OR
Add weight aft. How about 8 lbs. on tail stinger and 60 lbs. of gas in
baggage area.

The final solution:
Cut off canard and increase incidence (about 1 1/2 degrees for me)

Now plane flys "normal" with all surfaces flushed in.

I have also flown other Q-type aircraft with this problem.

Quickly looking up this topic in my database I see this problem was also
discussed in several "QuickTalk" articles in the early 80's where the
authors write about changing the canard incidence but do not discuss why
they changed the incidence or the amount or direction and the change. I do
recall an article that did discuss this and his reason for moving canard
incidence up, but I couldn't quickly find it. Jon, if you need more info
write and let me know.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: "QBA (E-mail)" <qba@...>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 10:05 PM
Subject: Canard mounting


Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if the
canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html


Re: Canard mounting

Fisher Paul <FisherPaul@...>
 

Jon,
I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster.
Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going wild (side
to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately determine
if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar with what
it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
which
could be masking my problem.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html







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


Re: Canard mounting

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Thanks Paul. I haven't moved the CG way back and tried to pitch buck. May
try that soon. I really wonder if that t-tail is doing something to prevent
pitch buck!

Yes, the Soob is heavier than the VW but not by much. My Q didn't pitch
buck with the Revmaster either.

The best part of this characteristic is that I don't get bored with my
landings!! :-)

Anybody out there have the tools necessary to accurately measure the angle
between the wing and canard? If so, bring them to Ottawa!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher Paul [mailto:FisherPaul@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:49 AM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Jon,
I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same
problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the
nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm
dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster.
Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full
down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power
if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior
during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going
wild (side
to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately
determine
if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two
methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG
limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar
with what
it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I
don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then
checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much
as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
which
could be masking my problem.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what
would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html







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






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


[Fwd: Canard mounting]

Tom Moore <qba321tm@...>
 

[Fwd: Canard mounting]

Tom Moore <qba321tm@...>
 

*** NEW Q-LIST ***

Tom Moore <qba321tm@...>
 

Guys,

Welcome to all of  you who have already signed up on the new Q-LIST.

Please take the time to unsubscribe from the old list.  Just send out a blank message to the following address.

qba-unsubscribe@...

Thanks,

Tom Moore

Re: Canard mounting

L.J. French <LFrench@...>
 

I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could bring them if needed.
Lynn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Thanks Paul. I haven't moved the CG way back and tried to pitch buck. May
try that soon. I really wonder if that t-tail is doing something to
prevent
pitch buck!

Yes, the Soob is heavier than the VW but not by much. My Q didn't pitch
buck with the Revmaster either.

The best part of this characteristic is that I don't get bored with my
landings!! :-)

Anybody out there have the tools necessary to accurately measure the angle
between the wing and canard? If so, bring them to Ottawa!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher Paul [mailto:FisherPaul@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:49 AM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Jon,
I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same
problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at
this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor
setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change
the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the
nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm
dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a
Revmaster.
Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not
pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full
down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power
if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior
during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going
wild (side
to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" -
3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately
determine
if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two
methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG
limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar
with what
it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming
more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I
don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred
the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil
pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then
checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much
as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The
original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a
nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
which
could be masking my problem.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what
would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html







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






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: Lousy plans

BD5ER@...
 

The fact that you built your Q with these plans is not a validation of
the quality of the plans - just of your intelligence and determination. The
fact that the EZ plans are also poor (I have never studied them myself so I
take your word for it, but I have seen them) actually is quite interesting
since these 2 planes are so closely related. Seem Mr. Rutan failed to learn
at least one lesson from Mr. Bede. The plans for my BD-5 are THE BEST
experimental plans I have seen. Everything is clear, in order, and almost
every rivet has its dimension and location specified. Now that it looks like
the powerplant problem has been solved - after 27 years- I may someday finish
mine.
Maybe I'm just spoiled
========================================

In a message dated 8/8/00 11:42:07 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
brirbrg@... writes:

<< I disagree . Have you ever had a long look a the Vari eze plans ? I
managed to build my Q without ever seeing another or talking to any other
builders until I was almost finished.
You guys building now have a great resource in this group , would have saved
me a lot of time.
Brad
CGTCA >>
====================================


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

List Content

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Hi all,

There have been several questions about the appearance of some of the recent
messages (they appear to be forwards). What we are doing is forwarding
messages over from the old Q-list to the new. These messages appear as
forwards. It won't lost forever, just until people stop sending messages to
the old list.

Jon

Re: Canard mounting

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Lynn,

Yes, please bring them and find me as soon as you get there. Are these
templates for the GU canard? We will plan on measuring all planes that show
up at Ottawa (depending on which canard they have).

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L.J. French [mailto:LFrench@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could bring them if needed.
Lynn