main@Q-List.groups.io | Mike Conlin Q-LIST Re: Waddelow canard info

Paul Buckley <Buckley@...>

#5607

Hi Mike
I have been trying to find someone who has built the Waddelow Canard, as per
original plans, for some time now, and the fact that you have both load
tested and flown the canard is fantastic news for us here in England!
I have built two 200" Waddelow canards, one of which is due to fly this
summer. The problem is that we have to persuade our CAA that the design has
flown before and/or has been load tested satisfactorily. Would you be
willing to supply me with details of the load test and the name and contact
info of the present owner so that I could verify the hours the canard now
has from the aircraft logbook?
Do you have any pics of the construction and the load test ?
Did you modify the design at all, however minor, or is it fully as Marc
Waddelow specified ?
This sort of information would be invaluable to us at this stage of the
game, and would be very much appreciated.
Thanking you in anticipation!

Paul Buckley        Buckley@...

Tri-Q 200, 85% completed.
Cheshire, England.

Show quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: conlin_m <conlin_m@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Waddelow canard info

..BOTH Wing and Canard were intended to be 240". One of each were
built. The main wing failed the load test, possibly due to the test
fixture. the canard passed. I built a 200" canard per his
instructions and load tested at the same time as the others. I
istalled this canard and flew it over 100Hrs before I sold the plane.
I would take a "tested, but broken" canard any day over the
unknown.....my butt is worth a little more than that. This is not
something you should do half-heartedly.  (I'm sure some won't like
this.) Mike Conlin

Mike Conlin

#5608

Paul, Mark and I built those per his schedule at about the same time.
He brought his 240" wing/canard over to my house, then he and I load 
tested both of his and mine in my driveway. I have pictures of that 
event which I can scan and post for those interested. I will have to 
locate them. (that may take a few days.....)
as far as that plane.....I parted it out 100 hrs. the main wing had 
previously had a fuel tank above it, and i did some major repair to 
it, but did not want the liability associated with that.
Mark made a few revisions to the plans after we were done, such as 
the glass webs between the cores. Mind you, that was over 15 yrs ago, 
so I may not remember all the details.   Mike
-- In Q-LIST@y..., "Paul Buckley" <Buckley@h...> wrote:
Hi Mike
I have been trying to find someone who has built the Waddelow Canard, as per
original plans, for some time now, and the fact that you have both load
tested and flown the canard is fantastic news for us here in England!
I have built two 200" Waddelow canards, one of which is due to fly this
summer. The problem is that we have to persuade our CAA that the design has
flown before and/or has been load tested satisfactorily. Would you be
willing to supply me with details of the load test and the name and contact
info of the present owner so that I could verify the hours the canard now
has from the aircraft logbook?
Do you have any pics of the construction and the load test ?
Did you modify the design at all, however minor, or is it fully as Marc
Waddelow specified ?
This sort of information would be invaluable to us at this stage of the
game, and would be very much appreciated.
Thanking you in anticipation!

Paul Buckley        Buckley@h...

Tri-Q 200, 85% completed.
Cheshire, England.



----- Original Message -----
From: conlin_m <conlin_m@y...>
To: <Q-LIST@y...>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Waddelow canard info



..BOTH Wing and Canard were intended to be 240". One of each were
built. The main wing failed the load test, possibly due to the test
fixture. the canard passed. I built a 200" canard per his
instructions and load tested at the same time as the others. I
istalled this canard and flew it over 100Hrs before I sold the plane.
I would take a "tested, but broken" canard any day over the
unknown.....my butt is worth a little more than that. This is not
something you should do half-heartedly.  (I'm sure some won't like
this.) Mike Conlin

Bruce Crain

#5609

Mike, 
When you say the glass webs between the cores are you refering to the
canard or did Mark decide to put an extra shear web in the main wing
also?  I am assuming the canard passed the test because of the extra
shear web at 30% cord plus  tapered spar caps.  
As for the main wing test failure I am confused because the main wing is
built per plans with extra BID lay ups on the aft shear web plus the
tapered spar caps. Wasn't it stronger than the original main wing at that
point?  In Mark's notes he says something like load test per Q plans but
leave out the jack.  Is that the part of the fixture you referred to as
causing the test failure on the main wing.

Thanks so much for your input!
Bruce Crain

 
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:24:41 -0000 "conlin_m" <conlin_m@...>
writes:

Show quoted text

Paul, Mark and I built those per his schedule at about the same 
time.
He brought his 240" wing/canard over to my house, then he and I load 

tested both of his and mine in my driveway. I have pictures of that 

event which I can scan and post for those interested. I will have to 

locate them. (that may take a few days.....)
as far as that plane.....I parted it out 100 hrs. the main wing had 

previously had a fuel tank above it, and i did some major repair to 

it, but did not want the liability associated with that.
Mark made a few revisions to the plans after we were done, such as 
the glass webs between the cores. Mind you, that was over 15 yrs 
ago, 
so I may not remember all the details.   Mike
-- In Q-LIST@y..., "Paul Buckley" <Buckley@h...> wrote:
Hi Mike
I have been trying to find someone who has built the Waddelow Canard, as per
original plans, for some time now, and the fact that you have both load
tested and flown the canard is fantastic news for us here in England!
I have built two 200" Waddelow canards, one of which is due to fly this
summer. The problem is that we have to persuade our CAA that the design has
flown before and/or has been load tested satisfactorily. Would you be
willing to supply me with details of the load test and the name and 
contact
info of the present owner so that I could verify the hours the canard now
has from the aircraft logbook?
Do you have any pics of the construction and the load test ?
Did you modify the design at all, however minor, or is it fully as Marc
Waddelow specified ?
This sort of information would be invaluable to us at this stage of 
the
game, and would be very much appreciated.
Thanking you in anticipation!

Paul Buckley        Buckley@h...

Tri-Q 200, 85% completed.
Cheshire, England.



----- Original Message -----
From: conlin_m <conlin_m@y...>
To: <Q-LIST@y...>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Waddelow canard info



..BOTH Wing and Canard were intended to be 240". One of each were
built. The main wing failed the load test, possibly due to the test
fixture. the canard passed. I built a 200" canard per his
instructions and load tested at the same time as the others. I
istalled this canard and flew it over 100Hrs before I sold the plane.
I would take a "tested, but broken" canard any day over the
unknown.....my butt is worth a little more than that. This is not
something you should do half-heartedly.  (I'm sure some won't like
this.) Mike Conlin
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

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

 

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

Hot Wings

#5611

I am also interested in the mode of failure, and your 
speculations/reasons for the failure.
======================================
In a message dated 1/21/02 9:49:53 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
jcrain2@... writes:


Mike, 
When you say the glass webs between the cores are you refering to the
canard or did Mark decide to put an extra shear web in the main wing
also?  I am assuming the canard passed the test because of the extra
shear web at 30% cord plus  tapered spar caps.  
As for the main wing test failure I am confused because the main wing is
built per plans with extra BID lay ups on the aft shear web plus the
tapered spar caps. Wasn't it stronger than the original main wing at that
point?  In Mark's notes he says something like load test per Q plans but
leave out the jack.  Is that the part of the fixture you referred to as
causing the test failure on the main wing.
     
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Think outside the box......Fly in the envelope

Leon McAtee
Q-2/turbo VW Rabbit GTI/G-60
Q-1/????????????????

Mike Conlin

#5612

I was refering to the canard--
it's not safe to assume anything........we didn't know for sure if 
the "saddle fixture" caused the load test failure---
I wasn't involved with the construction of his wing, so really didn't 
have any knowledge of it..I was rebuilding a wrecked Q2, so only was 
interested in the canard. I really don't remember that QAC had load 
test plans, since we worked from information he created, which most 
of you probably have.
We used jacks on all three (2 canards/1 wing) that we load tested.
BTW, I have the 240" canard that he built. It was never finished.
As I said before, it's been a few years---------
--- In Q-LIST@y..., The Bruce Crains <jcrain2@j...> wrote:
Mike, 
When you say the glass webs between the cores are you refering to the
canard or did Mark decide to put an extra shear web in the main wing
also?  I am assuming the canard passed the test because of the extra
shear web at 30% cord plus  tapered spar caps.  
As for the main wing test failure I am confused because the main wing is
built per plans with extra BID lay ups on the aft shear web plus the
tapered spar caps. Wasn't it stronger than the original main wing at that
point?  In Mark's notes he says something like load test per Q plans but
leave out the jack.  Is that the part of the fixture you referred to as
causing the test failure on the main wing.

Thanks so much for your input!
Bruce Crain

JMasal@...

#5614

After Marc's airfoil failed I drove to Osh with him that summer. We made it a 
point to attend a NASA forum on stress testing. When we saw photos of a wing 
load test, lightbulbs went on in our heads and we realized his fixture was 
all wrong. Prolly all 3 of those airfoils were OK.

j.

Bruce Crain

#5618

Jim,
Did Marc use the load test from a past Quickie news letter or something
different?  Seems like I remember something in a conversation about
"folks" loading their airfoils to the max and leaving the load to long. 
Wasn't there some discussion at one of the Q forums about testing for
only a few seconds and then removing the weight?  
Thanks for the info below.  For the "ones" of us building the Waddlow
airfoils I would like to offer a sigh of relief.
Jimmeh You Da Man!!

Bruce Crain


On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:32:53 EST JMasal@... writes:
After Marc's airfoil failed I drove to Osh with him that summer. We 
made it a 
point to attend a NASA forum on stress testing. When we saw photos 
of a wing 
load test, lightbulbs went on in our heads and we realized his 
fixture was 
all wrong. Prolly all 3 of those airfoils were OK.

j.






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

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

 

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


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