GU Canard Wax


Ed MacLeod <ed@...>
 

Has anyone tried Dura-Shine(tm) wax on a GU canard to improve rain
tolerance?

I tracked the stuff down and tried it on my car today.

Water droplets spread out instead of beading up. Water lightly
sprayed on the surface (simulated rain) quickly spreads out wetting
the entire surface, excess water runs off in a sheet. Mist sprayed
on the surface produces very flat water spots.

If mechanical turbulance caused by water drops is the cause for the
flow separation in rain, perhaps this stuff would help.

As always, I could be wrong.


Ed m


James Postma <james@...>
 

Ed,

ONe of the early factory newsletters recommended using Rain-X on the GU
canard to improve rain tolerance. However, the label on Rain-X says that it
might not be compatible with your paint so test it first.

I'm going to test it by dumping water on my canard just before take off roll
and measuring minimum unstick speed (stick full back) before and after
Rain-X and with and without water. Not tested yet.

An in flight test in actual rain could spoil your whole day without VG's
according to those who have had this delightful experience and lived to tell
about it, so I recommend some other test.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed MacLeod" <ed@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 2:47 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


Has anyone tried Dura-Shine(tm) wax on a GU canard to improve rain
tolerance?

I tracked the stuff down and tried it on my car today.

Water droplets spread out instead of beading up. Water lightly
sprayed on the surface (simulated rain) quickly spreads out wetting
the entire surface, excess water runs off in a sheet. Mist sprayed
on the surface produces very flat water spots.

If mechanical turbulance caused by water drops is the cause for the
flow separation in rain, perhaps this stuff would help.

As always, I could be wrong.


Ed m






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


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

James,

Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on a GU
canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to do it,
just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').

It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles from the
airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)

Jon Finley
Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html

-----Original Message-----
From: James Postma [mailto:james@...]
Sent: 09/28/2000 10:35 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


Ed,

ONe of the early factory newsletters recommended using Rain-X on the GU
canard to improve rain tolerance. However, the label on Rain-X says that
it
might not be compatible with your paint so test it first.

I'm going to test it by dumping water on my canard just before take off
roll
and measuring minimum unstick speed (stick full back) before and after
Rain-X and with and without water. Not tested yet.

An in flight test in actual rain could spoil your whole day without VG's
according to those who have had this delightful experience and lived to
tell
about it, so I recommend some other test.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed MacLeod" <ed@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 2:47 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


> Has anyone tried Dura-Shine(tm) wax on a GU canard to improve rain
> tolerance?
>
> I tracked the stuff down and tried it on my car today.
>
> Water droplets spread out instead of beading up. Water lightly
> sprayed on the surface (simulated rain) quickly spreads out wetting
> the entire surface, excess water runs off in a sheet. Mist sprayed
> on the surface produces very flat water spots.
>
> If mechanical turbulance caused by water drops is the cause for the
> flow separation in rain, perhaps this stuff would help.
>
> As always, I could be wrong.
>
>
> Ed m
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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


James Postma <james@...>
 

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. If it is 85
mph, you will have trouble keeping it in the air. Another point is that the
water may dry off during the take off run if your humidity is low. Tests in
Arizona might not work too good. No way I want to be at more than 1 foot
AGL with wet wings in an unknown situation. Also I have 4,000 and 6,000
feet runways at Chino so can take my time approaching lift off. The data I
am looking for is with water and with and without Rain-X or other slippery
stuff. As I say the newsletter said it was effective, but no quantitative
data. My current unstick speed is 63 mph without VG's.

This is how I first learned ground handling and landing characteristics. My
first flights were at 1 foot. The roll outs were definitely unstable and
barely controlable. So I have gone to a large rudder and can now control
the roll out with it. I have also done the zero camber David Gall mod. It
looks promising but needs more testing.
Which brings up another point. We read here all the time about subjective
flight tests such as "came around the pattern once and landed O.K." Or my
configuration works good. But every high time pilot I have talked to, some
with extensive military turn and burn time, admit that this bird is
difficult to get to roll out straight and will not land on narrow runways.
The exception is those who have done the camber mod.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


James,

Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on a
GU
canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to do
it,
just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').

It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles from
the
airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)

Jon Finley
Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html





welshq1@...
 

James:

Welsh here.
Just thought I'd add a little sumpin to the Canard thing.

Back in 1995 when Burt Rutan visited Terre Haute he suggested
how I test to determine the effect of VG's in rain conditions.

He said to apply a strip of duct tape to the leading edge of the canard
about half span. This would simulate more than enough rain to
get the job done and to BE CAREFUL and not to attempt to fly the plane
more than just off the runway. He said that it would likley be very
difficult to handle.
The addition of VG's should make it fly near normal.

I didn't do the test instead I got caught in rain one day by accident
flying home from
Mattoon. Bad thing!!! After the VG installation Crouch and I found a
popcorn shower
to play with and all was right with the world.

Hope you all have a GREAT OttaWOW. Sounds like Don has a great one
planned.
Sorry I can't be there. Duty calls.

Keith
N494K


John Loram <johnl@...>
 

Keith: Would you describe the placement and dimensions of the duct tape?

thanks, -john-

-----Original Message-----
From: welshq1@... [mailto:welshq1@...]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:01 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


James:

Welsh here.
Just thought I'd add a little sumpin to the Canard thing.

Back in 1995 when Burt Rutan visited Terre Haute he suggested
how I test to determine the effect of VG's in rain conditions.

He said to apply a strip of duct tape to the leading edge of the canard
about half span. This would simulate more than enough rain to
get the job done and to BE CAREFUL and not to attempt to fly the plane
more than just off the runway. He said that it would likley be very
difficult to handle.
The addition of VG's should make it fly near normal.

I didn't do the test instead I got caught in rain one day by accident
flying home from
Mattoon. Bad thing!!! After the VG installation Crouch and I found a
popcorn shower
to play with and all was right with the world.

Hope you all have a GREAT OttaWOW. Sounds like Don has a great one
planned.
Sorry I can't be there. Duty calls.

Keith
N494K




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


James Patillo <patillo@...>
 

James,

I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made "The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch covering up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these aircraft takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!

Regards,

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP

----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


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. If it is 85
mph, you will have trouble keeping it in the air. Another point is that the
water may dry off during the take off run if your humidity is low. Tests in
Arizona might not work too good. No way I want to be at more than 1 foot
AGL with wet wings in an unknown situation. Also I have 4,000 and 6,000
feet runways at Chino so can take my time approaching lift off. The data I
am looking for is with water and with and without Rain-X or other slippery
stuff. As I say the newsletter said it was effective, but no quantitative
data. My current unstick speed is 63 mph without VG's.

This is how I first learned ground handling and landing characteristics. My
first flights were at 1 foot. The roll outs were definitely unstable and
barely controlable. So I have gone to a large rudder and can now control
the roll out with it. I have also done the zero camber David Gall mod. It
looks promising but needs more testing.
Which brings up another point. We read here all the time about subjective
flight tests such as "came around the pattern once and landed O.K." Or my
configuration works good. But every high time pilot I have talked to, some
with extensive military turn and burn time, admit that this bird is
difficult to get to roll out straight and will not land on narrow runways.
The exception is those who have done the camber mod.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


> James,
>
> Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on a
GU
> canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
> take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to do
it,
> just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').
>
> It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles from
the
> airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)
>
> Jon Finley
> Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
> Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.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


Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 10/1/00 9:14:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
finley@... writes:

<< For now, without information on how your
gear is set, we are forced to say "Yah sure, you just got lucky and got the
gear alignment right the first time!".
>>
====================
Here are a couple of pics of a Q that is alleged to handle well. I have
not flown in it yet but I have seen it in action and he didn't seem to have
any problems. As you can see he has not done the "Gall" alignment and the
other side has a noticeably different amount of camber.
I was going to send you the pic of the wheel pant on the other list today
but you can get it from the FTP location to show your aerodynamic guy if you
want.

<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bd5er/tailwheel.jpg">
http://members.aol.com/bd5er/tailwheel.jpg</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bd5er/wheel.jpg">
http://members.aol.com/bd5er/wheel.jpg</A>

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


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Jim,

We have seen the list of things that you and Bob did differently with your
planes (specifically the tail wheel). Please tell us how you installed the
main gear and axles? Did you use the old sight through the axle holes while
upside down method?? Where are your axles set (camber/toe)?

Given the lack of response to this question the last couple times that I
asked I assume you know what I am after and are not willing to provide the
information. You may be one of the lucky ones that got your axles set
"right" the first time. I don't understand how you can claim (implied in
this message) that the "Gall Mod" and main gear alignment have nothing to do
with how your aircraft behaves on the ground when you don't know how your
gear is set?? What if you ran an alignment test and found that your axles
were set exactly per David's suggestions - what would you say then?? If you
were to run the test and they were far different than David's suggestion
then we might sit up and listen. For now, without information on how your
gear is set, we are forced to say "Yah sure, you just got lucky and got the
gear alignment right the first time!".

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

-----Original Message-----
From: James Patillo [mailto:patillo@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:55 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


James,

I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to
dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger
possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made
"The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch covering
up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep
telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these aircraft
takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans
available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!

Regards,

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP
----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


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. If it is
85
mph, you will have trouble keeping it in the air. Another point is that
the
water may dry off during the take off run if your humidity is low.
Tests in
Arizona might not work too good. No way I want to be at more than 1
foot
AGL with wet wings in an unknown situation. Also I have 4,000 and 6,000
feet runways at Chino so can take my time approaching lift off. The
data I
am looking for is with water and with and without Rain-X or other
slippery
stuff. As I say the newsletter said it was effective, but no
quantitative
data. My current unstick speed is 63 mph without VG's.

This is how I first learned ground handling and landing characteristics.
My
first flights were at 1 foot. The roll outs were definitely unstable
and
barely controlable. So I have gone to a large rudder and can now
control
the roll out with it. I have also done the zero camber David Gall mod.
It
looks promising but needs more testing.
Which brings up another point. We read here all the time about
subjective
flight tests such as "came around the pattern once and landed O.K." Or
my
configuration works good. But every high time pilot I have talked to,
some
with extensive military turn and burn time, admit that this bird is
difficult to get to roll out straight and will not land on narrow
runways.
The exception is those who have done the camber mod.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


> James,
>
> Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on
a
GU
> canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
> take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to
do
it,
> just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').
>
> It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles
from
the
> airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)
>
> Jon Finley
> Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
> Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.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









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


James Patillo <patillo@...>
 

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 ".

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


Jim,

We have seen the list of things that you and Bob did differently with your
planes (specifically the tail wheel). Please tell us how you installed the
main gear and axles? Did you use the old sight through the axle holes while
upside down method?? Where are your axles set (camber/toe)?

Given the lack of response to this question the last couple times that I
asked I assume you know what I am after and are not willing to provide the
information. You may be one of the lucky ones that got your axles set
"right" the first time. I don't understand how you can claim (implied in
this message) that the "Gall Mod" and main gear alignment have nothing to do
with how your aircraft behaves on the ground when you don't know how your
gear is set?? What if you ran an alignment test and found that your axles
were set exactly per David's suggestions - what would you say then?? If you
were to run the test and they were far different than David's suggestion
then we might sit up and listen. For now, without information on how your
gear is set, we are forced to say "Yah sure, you just got lucky and got the
gear alignment right the first time!".

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


-----Original Message-----
From: James Patillo [mailto:patillo@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:55 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


James,

I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to
dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger
possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made
"The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch covering
up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep
telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these aircraft
takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans
available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!

Regards,

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP
----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


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. If it is
85
mph, you will have trouble keeping it in the air. Another point is that
the
water may dry off during the take off run if your humidity is low.
Tests in
Arizona might not work too good. No way I want to be at more than 1
foot
AGL with wet wings in an unknown situation. Also I have 4,000 and 6,000
feet runways at Chino so can take my time approaching lift off. The
data I
am looking for is with water and with and without Rain-X or other
slippery
stuff. As I say the newsletter said it was effective, but no
quantitative
data. My current unstick speed is 63 mph without VG's.

This is how I first learned ground handling and landing characteristics.
My
first flights were at 1 foot. The roll outs were definitely unstable
and
barely controlable. So I have gone to a large rudder and can now
control
the roll out with it. I have also done the zero camber David Gall mod.
It
looks promising but needs more testing.
Which brings up another point. We read here all the time about
subjective
flight tests such as "came around the pattern once and landed O.K." Or
my
configuration works good. But every high time pilot I have talked to,
some
with extensive military turn and burn time, admit that this bird is
difficult to get to roll out straight and will not land on narrow
runways.
The exception is those who have done the camber mod.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


> James,
>
> Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on
a
GU
> canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
> take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to
do
it,
> just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').
>
> It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles
from
the
> airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)
>
> Jon Finley
> Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
> Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.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









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


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 ".


Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

Jon,

Look back through the archives. I have written this up in some detail at
least three times, and Tom Moore has an article I wrote for the Q-Talk
which he will probably be publishing soon. Basically, Jim and I have
Q200's which are pussycats on the ground. Jim Patillo has about 20 or so
hours into his flight test and has never had problem with steering, and
I have about 250 hours on mine. Both airplanes have good manners. Mine
is much better than the Piper Pacer I used to own with Jim Ham. Neither
airplane has the Gall modification - both have plans alignment (about
0.6 degree toeout, zero camber with no load). We both have La Rue brake
mods with toe brakes, reduced throw full swiveling tailwheels, and tail
wheel steering springs. Basically, we threw out the odd steering lashup
that Quickie designed and made the airplane like all the other
taildragges in the world. No magic! For the two of us, it works fine.
Incidentally, I see nothing wrong with changing the camber alignment,
but I don't believe that camber is the problem. After all, lots of
spring gear taildraggers have camber change under load. I think the
problem with a standard Quickie is lack of effective steering power
under some conditions. No taildragger wants to roll straight on its own.
Setting it up like other taildraggers gives it the steering power it
needs. The reduced tailwheel throw calms down the twitchiness at high
speed, and the tailwheel springs soften the steering and help prevent it
from darting to the side if landed crossed up in a crosswind. A side
benefit is that breaking the tailspring doesn't cause the complete loss
of all the steering. If anyone wants a demo, come to the Mountain States
flyin. I'll be glad to give rides. As far as the Livermore contingent is
concerned, we consider the steering to be a problem no longer.

Bob Farnam
N200QK



Jon Finley wrote:


Jim,

We have seen the list of things that you and Bob did differently with your
planes (specifically the tail wheel). Please tell us how you installed the
main gear and axles? Did you use the old sight through the axle holes while
upside down method?? Where are your axles set (camber/toe)?

Given the lack of response to this question the last couple times that I
asked I assume you know what I am after and are not willing to provide the
information. You may be one of the lucky ones that got your axles set
"right" the first time. I don't understand how you can claim (implied in
this message) that the "Gall Mod" and main gear alignment have nothing to do
with how your aircraft behaves on the ground when you don't know how your
gear is set?? What if you ran an alignment test and found that your axles
were set exactly per David's suggestions - what would you say then?? If you
were to run the test and they were far different than David's suggestion
then we might sit up and listen. For now, without information on how your
gear is set, we are forced to say "Yah sure, you just got lucky and got the
gear alignment right the first time!".

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

-----Original Message-----
From: James Patillo [mailto:patillo@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 9:55 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax

James,

I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to
dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger
possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made
"The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch covering
up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep
telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these aircraft
takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans
available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!

Regards,

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP
----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax

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. If it is
85
mph, you will have trouble keeping it in the air. Another point is that
the
water may dry off during the take off run if your humidity is low.
Tests in
Arizona might not work too good. No way I want to be at more than 1
foot
AGL with wet wings in an unknown situation. Also I have 4,000 and 6,000
feet runways at Chino so can take my time approaching lift off. The
data I
am looking for is with water and with and without Rain-X or other
slippery
stuff. As I say the newsletter said it was effective, but no
quantitative
data. My current unstick speed is 63 mph without VG's.

This is how I first learned ground handling and landing characteristics.
My
first flights were at 1 foot. The roll outs were definitely unstable
and
barely controlable. So I have gone to a large rudder and can now
control
the roll out with it. I have also done the zero camber David Gall mod.
It
looks promising but needs more testing.
Which brings up another point. We read here all the time about
subjective
flight tests such as "came around the pattern once and landed O.K." Or
my
configuration works good. But every high time pilot I have talked to,
some
with extensive military turn and burn time, admit that this bird is
difficult to get to roll out straight and will not land on narrow
runways.
The exception is those who have done the camber mod.

James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax

> James,
>
> Please, please, please be careful with this sort of testing. Water on
a
GU
> canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting to
> take-off is a very, very, very bad thing. I'm not telling you not to
do
it,
> just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').
>
> It only takes one flight where you are still at 20' AGL, two miles
from
the
> airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)
>
> Jon Finley
> Q1 N54JF - 1835cc VW
> Q2 N90MG - Subaru EA-81 DD Turbo
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.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



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


mbrowner1@...
 

So...

Do I put the steering dampener on the mains or the tail wheel??

Mike Brown
Couldn't resist :-)
I'm gonna do the whole ball'o'wax....and play with aileron steering (do THEY
need a dampener??)

n a message dated 10/01/2000 9:42:02 PM Central Daylight Time, David@...
writes:

<< 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 dampene >>


Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

Along these lines, Dave Naumann was either "SuperYeager, Tailwheel
Driver Supreme" or this alignment thing is black magic. His wheels were
nowhere near right and he obviously managed to keep it going pointy end
first. Maybe it's just what you adapt to, like a dog born with three legs,
if you don't have any other experience you don't know how bad (or good) it
really is. Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: <BD5ER@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


In a message dated 10/1/00 9:14:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
finley@... writes:

<< For now, without information on how your
gear is set, we are forced to say "Yah sure, you just got lucky and got
the
gear alignment right the first time!".
>>
====================
Here are a couple of pics of a Q that is alleged to handle well. I
have
not flown in it yet but I have seen it in action and he didn't seem to
have
any problems. As you can see he has not done the "Gall" alignment and the
other side has a noticeably different amount of camber.
I was going to send you the pic of the wheel pant on the other list
today
but you can get it from the FTP location to show your aerodynamic guy if
you
want.

<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bd5er/tailwheel.jpg">
http://members.aol.com/bd5er/tailwheel.jpg</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/bd5er/wheel.jpg">
http://members.aol.com/bd5er/wheel.jpg</A>

"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




James Postma <james@...>
 

Jim,

Thanks for the input. Two things seem to need addressing.

One is the instability or lack thereof. I wonder if your tailwheel mod
affects it. No doubt the more conventional tailwheel arrangement does
change the steering characteristics. The Qbirds are somewhat unique in the
tailwheel configuration and yours is actually more conventional. All other
taildraggers (at least the certified ones) I have seen use a system similar
to yours. Maybe Dave can shed some light on the theory here.
But it is well proven both in theory and practice that the negative camber
produces directional instability in both autos and airplanes. The Me -109
is the best (worst) example of this with something like -6 degrees. Saw a
restored version fly at Chino last year. It is known to be so squirrely
that they flew in a pilot from England to fly it. It also lands slower that
our Q birds.

The other consideration is how to control it without running off the runway.
You choose to use powerful differential braking and maybe the tailwheel mod
dampens it. I use an enlarged rudder. Some use reverse aileron steering.
I am quite happy with control now as my rudder power is equal to the
tailwheel steering. With the original small rudder, whenever I hit a bump
I lost directional control. Now I have excellent control in wheel or tail
down modes. Incidentally, the rudder is a design by Frank Folmer and I
could probably get him to provide the plans if anyone is interested. It
always has baffled me why the designers put such a small rudder on a
taildragger. Every other one has a rudder sized for ground handling. I was
agast when I found out about the differential yaw approach, but my hat is
off to those that are successful with it. You probably are not familiar
with Frank Folmer as he does not fly much and is not on the computer. He is
one of the finest builders and designers that I know. I probably would have
given up and sold my bird if it was not for his valuable assistance.

Different strokes for different folks.


James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Patillo" <patillo@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


James,

I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to
dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger
possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made
"The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch covering
up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep
telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these aircraft
takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans
available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!

Regards,

Jim Patillo Q200 N46JP


Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

Jim,
I'd be interested in a nice big juicy rudder! Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma <james@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


Jim,

Thanks for the input. Two things seem to need addressing.

One is the instability or lack thereof. I wonder if your tailwheel mod
affects it. No doubt the more conventional tailwheel arrangement does
change the steering characteristics. The Qbirds are somewhat unique in
the
tailwheel configuration and yours is actually more conventional. All
other
taildraggers (at least the certified ones) I have seen use a system
similar
to yours. Maybe Dave can shed some light on the theory here.
But it is well proven both in theory and practice that the negative camber
produces directional instability in both autos and airplanes. The Me -109
is the best (worst) example of this with something like -6 degrees. Saw a
restored version fly at Chino last year. It is known to be so squirrely
that they flew in a pilot from England to fly it. It also lands slower
that
our Q birds.

The other consideration is how to control it without running off the
runway.
You choose to use powerful differential braking and maybe the tailwheel
mod
dampens it. I use an enlarged rudder. Some use reverse aileron steering.
I am quite happy with control now as my rudder power is equal to the
tailwheel steering. With the original small rudder, whenever I hit a
bump
I lost directional control. Now I have excellent control in wheel or tail
down modes. Incidentally, the rudder is a design by Frank Folmer and I
could probably get him to provide the plans if anyone is interested. It
always has baffled me why the designers put such a small rudder on a
taildragger. Every other one has a rudder sized for ground handling. I
was
agast when I found out about the differential yaw approach, but my hat is
off to those that are successful with it. You probably are not familiar
with Frank Folmer as he does not fly much and is not on the computer. He
is
one of the finest builders and designers that I know. I probably would
have
given up and sold my bird if it was not for his valuable assistance.

Different strokes for different folks.


James Postma
james@...
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT (GMT-8) voice

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Patillo" <patillo@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] GU Canard Wax


James,

I beg to differ! I have several thousand hours flying time,
X-Navy, United Airlines and many different types of AC and I'm here to
dispel what your saying. My plane behaves just like any other tail dragger
possibly even easier to handle especially in cross winds. I have not made
"The Gall Mod" and don't intend to. It may be "that mod" is a patch
covering
up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keep
telling anyone one interested that there a few mods that make these
aircraft
takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
there is another side to this story. Build your plane to the latest plans
available, make the few necessary mods and go have a blast!

Regards,

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