Date
1 - 16 of 16
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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
|
|
|
|
Jon Finley <finley@...>
James,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,GU canard is a bad thing. Water on one side of a GU canard attempting toit, just make sure you at least have LOTS of runway (like 12,000').the airport to make you realize how dangerous this can be. :-)
|
|
|
|
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?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,asking for input but may have missed your page. Here goes. 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. 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. 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,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
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
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,the gear alignment right the first time!".have not flown in it yet but I have seen it in action and he didn't seem tohave any problems. As you can see he has not done the "Gall" alignment and thetoday but you can get it from the FTP location to show your aerodynamic guy ifyou want.
|
|
|
|
James Postma <james@...>
Jim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,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!
|
|
|
|
Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
Jim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,the tailwheel configuration and yours is actually more conventional. Allother taildraggers (at least the certified ones) I have seen use a systemsimilar to yours. Maybe Dave can shed some light on the theory here.that our Q birds.runway. You choose to use powerful differential braking and maybe the tailwheelmod dampens it. I use an enlarged rudder. Some use reverse aileron steering.bump I lost directional control. Now I have excellent control in wheel or tailwas agast when I found out about the differential yaw approach, but my hat isis one of the finest builders and designers that I know. I probably wouldhave given up and sold my bird if it was not for his valuable assistance.covering up more serious problems with the airframe itself. Bob Farnum and I keepaircraft takeoff, land and fly beautifully and docile! New builders just realize
|
|
|