: Rudder balancing


damiantwinsport@...
 

So as I understand it and please correct me if I am wrong. That is Qs are not
reguired to have a passive or active anti flutter control surface devices .
Rudder balancing would or would not stop flutter or "Buzz" if the control
cables were loose?
Respectfully,
Damian Gregory ( newbie)


damiantwinsport@...
 

Al, thanks for reply. I am currently looking at several options from complete
kits w/o powerplants to a crashed Q with a broken wing.( I have a soft spot
for wounded animals)
I do not like the idea of wearing a cooking pot on my head for safety when I
ride my motorcycles so instead wear an expensive Simpson
(Carbon/kevlar/epoxy. ) That is one reason I have selected an all composite plane. Like I said in
an earlier post esthetically I have always loved the Q since day one. I need a
plane and just can't bring myself to buying a 172 or the ilk. My last
personal plane was a Funk if you know what that is. Fun to rebuild but a little too
creaky and slow for me. Lancairs I don't like the look of and I think they are
a bit pricey.
So it is a Q warts and all. Just want to get an idea from guys flying them
what improvements I could make. Composites and design as well as engineering
are my forte/curse so of course everything I touch is Stronger,Lighter,Faster
LOL . Today I am finishing up a carbon/kevlar epoxy body for my Pop's Lotus FF.
Why? Knock off 80 lb. and I can.
I appreciate advice and opinions rendered here.
Thanks,
Damian Gregory


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150 mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter, possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen. Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI. The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...> wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/


heandjrbass@...
 

Hi any of you guy's need a Q 2 I still have my project w/Revmaster 2100 D and
demuth prop, come on to Atlanta Ga and get it . Thank's Randy Bass.


alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.---

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time, how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/


alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

Damian,

Not quite sure of the question,
"That is Qs are not
reguired to have a passive or active anti flutter control surface
devices . "

but, there is, of course, no "requirement" to do really anything to
the airplane...

There has never been a plans inclusion for ANY type of rudder
balancing. The Q200 plans change included aileron balancing. I
know that the Q200 also had some sort of elevator balance, but it
may have been on the Q2, also, I can't remember.

You may be right on the topic of loose cables causing the same
problem, regardless of balancing...I don't know about that either. a

I do know, that the plans design on the rudder works OK for
flying...ground handling is another issue.

What plane are you building? Stage of progess, etc?

AL
N200AL

--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
So as I understand it and please correct me if I am wrong. That is
Qs are not
reguired to have a passive or active anti flutter control surface
devices .
Rudder balancing would or would not stop flutter or "Buzz" if the
control
cables were loose?
Respectfully,
Damian Gregory ( newbie)



David J. Gall
 

Al,

Sam's account is a classic description of flutter, not just buzz.

In answer to your question, "...anyone still think that balancing it is a
good idea?" Yes, the FAA does in FAR 23.629. I already posted that; try to
keep up.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.---

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time, how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/



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/



Bruce Crain
 

Just set your V-max at 175 and don't go over that. Finish the plane per rudder plans and enjoy it. Keep the tail wheel to rudder springs adjusted correctly and then go over 175. You don't have to have the fastest Q flying to enjoy it.
Bruce


-- "David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote:
Al,

Sam's account is a classic description of flutter, not just buzz.

In answer to your question, "...anyone still think that balancing it is a
good idea?" Yes, the FAA does in FAR 23.629. I already posted that; try to
keep up.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.---

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time, how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/



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/




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/


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

O.K David, so...

If it's such a good idea why:

Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the past 25
years or so)?

How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major design change to the rudder?

By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks is a
good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't agree
with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad ideas...
every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights and
strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They must
be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?

Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?

Al





--- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote:
Al,

Sam's account is a classic description of flutter, not just buzz.

In answer to your question, "...anyone still think that balancing
it is a
good idea?" Yes, the FAA does in FAR 23.629. I already posted
that; try to
keep up.


David J. Gall


-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@m...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


Sam,

Welcome back and congrats.

Now that we have the owner's verson of the story, it like Larry's
version certainly indicates that there is nothing in the design
of
the rudder of the Q2-Q2XX airplanes, that has shown iself worthy
of
change...certainly no cause for figuring out how to balance one.-
--

David G's info was certainly interesting, maybe in practical
terms
he could suggest, if someone really wanted to waste their time,
how
one could come up with a plan to redesign the rudder to make it
easy
to balance...I do like James P's idea, but many think that a
change
to the rudder is unnecessary, just like the same uniformed idea
that
a reflexor is a bad thing...

Well, two for two in world of cable slop and bad springs causing
some rudder chatter, buzz or vibration, or some distant cousin of
flutter...anyone still think that balancing it is a good idea?

I you're not flying yet and still think so...it's probably better
time spent building, rather than fixing something that ain't
broke.

I does bring up the point that as our planes age, as things wear,
checking the slop in the hinges and cables is a big deal. I
remember, years ago, being with Bob M. when he was working on his
aileron hinges, replacing the outboard bushing. He had noticed
his
ailerons vibrating a lot on the ground and found a lot of slop in
them. He found at some RPM taxiing, that some frequency in the
airframe hit resonance with the ailerons and they shook,a lot.

I suspect the rudder hinge is subject to the same wear, being
made
the same way...


Al

N200AL

In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@g...> wrote:
Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of
the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all
around
the 190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the
prop
tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing
down to
about 175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank
and
the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a
turn
or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@G...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else
was
busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have
remarked more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of
the
controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have
mentioned that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above
150
mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for
use
BELOW 200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below
that
speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter
Larry refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less
harmful cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter,
possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or
the typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally
plausible
that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or
by
applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change
in
the dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of
the controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more
energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down
to
make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got
flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't
happen.
Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI
George
Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in
WWI.
The great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel
Emeraude
at about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened
to
them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is
not to
bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them
and whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@s...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001"
<alfranken@m...>
wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge
point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the
planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/



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/



David J. Gall
 

Al,

Give you a break? You're taking pot-shots at me and you want me to give YOU
a break? Get real. Get off my case!

Your questions, in order, WITH common sense:

Q) Why hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the past 25
years or so)?

Oh, but they HAVE found it necessary to do "something" about flutter.
Balancing the rudder is but one from among several good alternative remedies
for flutter. You'd know that if you bothered to read any one of the many
good references available, or even had you done me the courtesy of reading
the excerpt that I took the time to type into this blasted box for YOUR
benefit. It just happens that mass-balancing is one of the best remedies, so
is considered by many to be a first choice. Read Wood, Teichmann, Perkins &
Hage, Dommasch, etc.

Sam Hoskins found that "something" was necessary to cure the flutter he
encountered three times, and he chose to tighten his cables. Larry Koutz
found it necessary to fix a spring. Both found it necessary to increase
vigilance on the condition of their rudder control systems. James Postma
found it necessary to balance his rudder. Perhaps his was a peremptory
strike against the possibility of flutter because he is a trained engineer
with a good eye for things like that.

So, there's three examples of airplanes where something was needed, and two
chose to call it a maintenance issue. But is it?

These are experimental airplanes; you can choose to handle it any way you
want to. IF you want to strive for the same level of safety that
certification supposedly offers, then you might choose to pursue a course of
action similar to what James Postma did. Or, you could learn from the sly
wisdom of Bruce Crain and realize that only the top-performing one percent
of Q200's will ever go fast enough (based on Sam's report) to even make it
an issue. So placard your Vne at 175, or make a mandatory maintenance
inspection prior to flight above 175 as an operating limitation. Its YOUR
airplane, YOU decide how to handle it. If you want to be an ostrich about
it, be my guest. If you end up in a smoking hole because of it, well,
consider that you might have made the wrong choice. :-)

Q) How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a major
design change to the rudder?

I wouldn't "suggest" a thing. If I wanted to balance the rudder on my plane,
I'd just do it. It would never be a "major" design change to completely
redesign such a small item as the rudder. However, were I to redesign it I'd
be wasting my time; better to just ask James Postma what he did and then
copy it!

Please don't tell me how screwed-up the FAA is, Al. I don't need to be
reminded. Just YOU keep in mind that their motto is: "We're not happy 'til
you're not happy." That said, there is something to be said in favor of some
of the regulations. Even if we're not required to abide by them, the
airworthiness regulations by-and-large do represent a solid foundation for
good airplane design practices.

About the "lights-on" issue, maybe the guy sitting next to you was gigging
you back for the way you treated him. Secretly, he's chuckling in his hat at
how pissed off you got about such a petty little issue. He knows how to push
your buttons, Al.

As for security, yes, it is good and, yes, even a little bit amazing, that
no more FedEx drivers have been able to hijack their own planes since flight
crew searches were instituted.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 9:42 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


O.K David, so...

If it's such a good idea why:

Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the past 25
years or so)?

How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major design change to the rudder?

By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks is a
good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't agree
with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad ideas...
every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights and
strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They must
be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?

Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?

Al


JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

David,

thanks for yet another clear explanation. It is clear that this
issue is poorly understood by even those purporting to be
professionals so I guess it is a reasonable guess that others might
not know too much about it either.

Flutter is a really serious problem, and perhaps the best reason why
there have not been more tears when it does not occur is because of
the increased fatigue rather than ultimate strength which is a
characteristic of composite structures. The FI really rack up when
high frequency loads are encountered. If the oscillations diverge (
which mass balancing is specifically designed to prevent)
catastrophic failure is almost always the result. Sam was most
likely much luckier than he realises, but he was smart enough to
realise that is was a problem and do something about it. Padre Kyte
(RIP) of the RNZAF was not so lucky after he removed his Sirocco
aileron mass balance weights to save weight.....

To add to your comments, It needs to be stated and restated that the
fact that the flying surfaces have not been mass balanced is a
design deficiency in the Q design which has been tolerated provided
certain limits are observed. It DOES NOT MEAN that this airframe
will not experience flutter. It is likely that Burt did the sums
and the flight tests on the Q1, establishing that the margins were
sufficiently high. It seems equally likely that the same
assumptions were made that it would be OK for the Q2, without
realising how much of the flutter safety margin was being eroded by
the increase in speed. And with all due respect to our esteemed
speed merchants, the difference between the fastest and the others
is only a few tens of knots which is very little in the overall
scheme of things. Mishandled aeros will see these numbers on the
clock in a heartbeat.

Your advice is right on the money.

John ten Have
Tech Counsellor





--- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote:
Al,

Give you a break? You're taking pot-shots at me and you want me to
give YOU
a break? Get real. Get off my case!

Your questions, in order, WITH common sense:

Q) Why hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in
the past 25
years or so)?

Oh, but they HAVE found it necessary to do "something" about
flutter.
Balancing the rudder is but one from among several good
alternative remedies
for flutter. You'd know that if you bothered to read any one of
the many
good references available, or even had you done me the courtesy of
reading
the excerpt that I took the time to type into this blasted box for
YOUR
benefit. It just happens that mass-balancing is one of the best
remedies, so
is considered by many to be a first choice. Read Wood, Teichmann,
Perkins &
Hage, Dommasch, etc.

Sam Hoskins found that "something" was necessary to cure the
flutter he
encountered three times, and he chose to tighten his cables. Larry
Koutz
found it necessary to fix a spring. Both found it necessary to
increase
vigilance on the condition of their rudder control systems. James
Postma
found it necessary to balance his rudder. Perhaps his was a
peremptory
strike against the possibility of flutter because he is a trained
engineer
with a good eye for things like that.

So, there's three examples of airplanes where something was
needed, and two
chose to call it a maintenance issue. But is it?

These are experimental airplanes; you can choose to handle it any
way you
want to. IF you want to strive for the same level of safety that
certification supposedly offers, then you might choose to pursue a
course of
action similar to what James Postma did. Or, you could learn from
the sly
wisdom of Bruce Crain and realize that only the top-performing one
percent
of Q200's will ever go fast enough (based on Sam's report) to even
make it
an issue. So placard your Vne at 175, or make a mandatory
maintenance
inspection prior to flight above 175 as an operating limitation.
Its YOUR
airplane, YOU decide how to handle it. If you want to be an
ostrich about
it, be my guest. If you end up in a smoking hole because of it,
well,
consider that you might have made the wrong choice. :-)

Q) How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major
design change to the rudder?

I wouldn't "suggest" a thing. If I wanted to balance the rudder on
my plane,
I'd just do it. It would never be a "major" design change to
completely
redesign such a small item as the rudder. However, were I to
redesign it I'd
be wasting my time; better to just ask James Postma what he did
and then
copy it!

Please don't tell me how screwed-up the FAA is, Al. I don't need
to be
reminded. Just YOU keep in mind that their motto is: "We're not
happy 'til
you're not happy." That said, there is something to be said in
favor of some
of the regulations. Even if we're not required to abide by them,
the
airworthiness regulations by-and-large do represent a solid
foundation for
good airplane design practices.

About the "lights-on" issue, maybe the guy sitting next to you was
gigging
you back for the way you treated him. Secretly, he's chuckling in
his hat at
how pissed off you got about such a petty little issue. He knows
how to push
your buttons, Al.

As for security, yes, it is good and, yes, even a little bit
amazing, that
no more FedEx drivers have been able to hijack their own planes
since flight
crew searches were instituted.


David J. Gall


-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@m...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 9:42 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


O.K David, so...

If it's such a good idea why:

Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the
past 25
years or so)?

How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major design change to the rudder?

By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks
is a
good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't
agree
with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad
ideas...
every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights
and
strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They
must
be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?

Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?

Al


JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

OOOPs Typo in line two para two..

should have read when it DOES OCCUR...

I blame the proof reader!

John
(proof reader)

--- In Q-LIST@..., "JohntenHave" <Jtenhave@m...> wrote:
David,

thanks for yet another clear explanation. It is clear that this
issue is poorly understood by even those purporting to be
professionals so I guess it is a reasonable guess that others
might
not know too much about it either.

Flutter is a really serious problem, and perhaps the best reason
why
there have not been more tears when it does ****not occur**** is
because


alfranken2001 <alfranken@...>
 

David,

I thought MAYBE you would have a theroretical fix to your
theoretical problem...guess not.

"Just do it", catchy phrase...but not advice. Pretty easy to say
without providing any guidance on how to do it...I guess maybe some
day we will see how you incorporated it into YOUR plane...

The rest of that was pretty funny...!

I think that's about all there is to say about that. (Sound of
Forest Gump)

"Lucy, you have 'splaining to do"!

Have a nice dey

Al

- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote:
Al,

Give you a break? You're taking pot-shots at me and you want me to
give YOU
a break? Get real. Get off my case!

Your questions, in order, WITH common sense:

Q) Why hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in
the past 25
years or so)?

Oh, but they HAVE found it necessary to do "something" about
flutter.
Balancing the rudder is but one from among several good
alternative remedies
for flutter. You'd know that if you bothered to read any one of
the many
good references available, or even had you done me the courtesy of
reading
the excerpt that I took the time to type into this blasted box for
YOUR
benefit. It just happens that mass-balancing is one of the best
remedies, so
is considered by many to be a first choice. Read Wood, Teichmann,
Perkins &
Hage, Dommasch, etc.

Sam Hoskins found that "something" was necessary to cure the
flutter he
encountered three times, and he chose to tighten his cables. Larry
Koutz
found it necessary to fix a spring. Both found it necessary to
increase
vigilance on the condition of their rudder control systems. James
Postma
found it necessary to balance his rudder. Perhaps his was a
peremptory
strike against the possibility of flutter because he is a trained
engineer
with a good eye for things like that.

So, there's three examples of airplanes where something was
needed, and two
chose to call it a maintenance issue. But is it?

These are experimental airplanes; you can choose to handle it any
way you
want to. IF you want to strive for the same level of safety that
certification supposedly offers, then you might choose to pursue a
course of
action similar to what James Postma did. Or, you could learn from
the sly
wisdom of Bruce Crain and realize that only the top-performing one
percent
of Q200's will ever go fast enough (based on Sam's report) to even
make it
an issue. So placard your Vne at 175, or make a mandatory
maintenance
inspection prior to flight above 175 as an operating limitation.
Its YOUR
airplane, YOU decide how to handle it. If you want to be an
ostrich about
it, be my guest. If you end up in a smoking hole because of it,
well,
consider that you might have made the wrong choice. :-)

Q) How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major
design change to the rudder?

I wouldn't "suggest" a thing. If I wanted to balance the rudder on
my plane,
I'd just do it. It would never be a "major" design change to
completely
redesign such a small item as the rudder. However, were I to
redesign it I'd
be wasting my time; better to just ask James Postma what he did
and then
copy it!

Please don't tell me how screwed-up the FAA is, Al. I don't need
to be
reminded. Just YOU keep in mind that their motto is: "We're not
happy 'til
you're not happy." That said, there is something to be said in
favor of some
of the regulations. Even if we're not required to abide by them,
the
airworthiness regulations by-and-large do represent a solid
foundation for
good airplane design practices.

About the "lights-on" issue, maybe the guy sitting next to you was
gigging
you back for the way you treated him. Secretly, he's chuckling in
his hat at
how pissed off you got about such a petty little issue. He knows
how to push
your buttons, Al.

As for security, yes, it is good and, yes, even a little bit
amazing, that
no more FedEx drivers have been able to hijack their own planes
since flight
crew searches were instituted.


David J. Gall


-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@m...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 9:42 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


O.K David, so...

If it's such a good idea why:

Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the
past 25
years or so)?

How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major design change to the rudder?

By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks
is a
good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't
agree
with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad
ideas...
every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights
and
strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They
must
be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?

Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?

Al


Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 11/2/03 06:01:40 AM Mountain Standard Time,
alfranken@... writes:


David,

I thought MAYBE you would have a theroretical fix to your
theoretical problem...guess not.
Opinions below not intended to incite anything - except thought and civilized
debate
==============================
I've got no degree and not near the experience of some others on this list,
but I can still see with crystal clarity the point David and John are making.

This is NOT a theoretical problem. It is very real and has been
demonstrated. It has killed in other planes. The fact that it has not yet in 25+ years
become a significant operational problem, does not mean that the phenomena is
not real, or that it will not become a problem as the fleet ages. The fact
that there is a known, and reliable method of preventing the problem, inspire of
poor maintenance should not be over looked. Should we wait spite the average
speed of the Q fleet rises another 10 knots and someone is actually killed to
act?

For those of us yet building maybe it would be worth the time to counter
balance our rudders. QAC apparently found the original q-2 elevator design
marginal enough at Q-200 speeds to add counter balances. Now that we are seeing
speeds of some Q's exceed those of the QAC prototype maybe we should heed the
warnings we have heard?

If one doesn't plan to exceed the speed where by experience we have found the
rudders to be relatively flutter free (nothing is 100%) than I'd vote for
saving the weight and build per plans. But not all builders are satisfied with
"plans" speed. And I see no compelling evidence (again keeping in mind my lack
of qualifications) to rush right out and add counter balance to rudders on
flying planes that have been properly flight tested.

As for actually adding weight to the rudder to counter balance - that's not a
significant chore, either from an engineering standpoint or the actual
implementation It could even be done to the stock rudder while still on the plane in
an afternoon. One can even invision a method that would not require the
cutting of a bit of structure or having to break out the paint gun. It may not be
pretty but.................

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 "super sized"...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____


rondefly <rondefly@...>
 

If anyone wanted to balance the rudder it would not be a hard project, the
way it is on the Dragonfly it would be pretty simple. I would either extend
the rudder up and forward to match, add weights, or cut out forward of the
rudder, then cut into the rudder to add a forward balance point. Anyone who
has built already should find this a pretty simple thing. Would sure make
for a patch on the paint though.

Ron

Ron Triano, Quickerone
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page3.html

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:01 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


David,

I thought MAYBE you would have a theroretical fix to your
theoretical problem...guess not.

"Just do it", catchy phrase...but not advice. Pretty easy to say
without providing any guidance on how to do it...I guess maybe some
day we will see how you incorporated it into YOUR plane...

The rest of that was pretty funny...!

I think that's about all there is to say about that. (Sound of
Forest Gump)

"Lucy, you have 'splaining to do"!

Have a nice dey

Al

- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote:
> Al,
>
> Give you a break? You're taking pot-shots at me and you want me to
give YOU
> a break? Get real. Get off my case!
>
> Your questions, in order, WITH common sense:
>
> Q) Why hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in
the past 25
> years or so)?
>
> Oh, but they HAVE found it necessary to do "something" about
flutter.
> Balancing the rudder is but one from among several good
alternative remedies
> for flutter. You'd know that if you bothered to read any one of
the many
> good references available, or even had you done me the courtesy of
reading
> the excerpt that I took the time to type into this blasted box for
YOUR
> benefit. It just happens that mass-balancing is one of the best
remedies, so
> is considered by many to be a first choice. Read Wood, Teichmann,
Perkins &
> Hage, Dommasch, etc.
>
> Sam Hoskins found that "something" was necessary to cure the
flutter he
> encountered three times, and he chose to tighten his cables. Larry
Koutz
> found it necessary to fix a spring. Both found it necessary to
increase
> vigilance on the condition of their rudder control systems. James
Postma
> found it necessary to balance his rudder. Perhaps his was a
peremptory
> strike against the possibility of flutter because he is a trained
engineer
> with a good eye for things like that.
>
> So, there's three examples of airplanes where something was
needed, and two
> chose to call it a maintenance issue. But is it?
>
> These are experimental airplanes; you can choose to handle it any
way you
> want to. IF you want to strive for the same level of safety that
> certification supposedly offers, then you might choose to pursue a
course of
> action similar to what James Postma did. Or, you could learn from
the sly
> wisdom of Bruce Crain and realize that only the top-performing one
percent
> of Q200's will ever go fast enough (based on Sam's report) to even
make it
> an issue. So placard your Vne at 175, or make a mandatory
maintenance
> inspection prior to flight above 175 as an operating limitation.
Its YOUR
> airplane, YOU decide how to handle it. If you want to be an
ostrich about
> it, be my guest. If you end up in a smoking hole because of it,
well,
> consider that you might have made the wrong choice. :-)
>
> Q) How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major
> design change to the rudder?
>
> I wouldn't "suggest" a thing. If I wanted to balance the rudder on
my plane,
> I'd just do it. It would never be a "major" design change to
completely
> redesign such a small item as the rudder. However, were I to
redesign it I'd
> be wasting my time; better to just ask James Postma what he did
and then
> copy it!
>
> Please don't tell me how screwed-up the FAA is, Al. I don't need
to be
> reminded. Just YOU keep in mind that their motto is: "We're not
happy 'til
> you're not happy." That said, there is something to be said in
favor of some
> of the regulations. Even if we're not required to abide by them,
the
> airworthiness regulations by-and-large do represent a solid
foundation for
> good airplane design practices.
>
> About the "lights-on" issue, maybe the guy sitting next to you was
gigging
> you back for the way you treated him. Secretly, he's chuckling in
his hat at
> how pissed off you got about such a petty little issue. He knows
how to push
> your buttons, Al.
>
> As for security, yes, it is good and, yes, even a little bit
amazing, that
> no more FedEx drivers have been able to hijack their own planes
since flight
> crew searches were instituted.
>
>
> David J. Gall
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@m...]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 9:42 PM
> > To: Q-LIST@...
> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing
> >
> >
> > O.K David, so...
> >
> > If it's such a good idea why:
> >
> > Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the
past 25
> > years or so)?
> >
> > How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
> > major design change to the rudder?
> >
> > By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks
is a
> > good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't
agree
> > with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
> > WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
> > avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad
ideas...
> > every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights
and
> > strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They
must
> > be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
> > haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
> > they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
> > hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?
> >
> > Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
> > answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?
> >
> > Al


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


James Doyle <jdoyle1941@...>
 

Sam, That is one of the reasons Larry and I changed our rudder
configuration.. We added another bearing surface and went from the pedals to
the rudder bellcrank and then to the tail wheel. Then we removed the tail
wheel which solved a lot of problems.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around the
190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to about
175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have remarked
more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have mentioned
that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150 mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use BELOW
200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter Larry
refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less harmful
cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter, possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or the
typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in the
dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of the
controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen. Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI. The
great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude at
about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them and
whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...> wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/




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/


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Jim, I have changed my setup also. My rudder cables now "split" just aft of
the fuselage split line. One cable goes directly to the tail wheel horn,
the other directly to the rudder bellcrank. I included an adjusting
turnbuckle so I can keep the desired tension in the rudder cables. I have a
couple of photos of it posted here.
http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/n202shdetail.html

I flew the Airventure Cup Race with this set-up, and no rudder flutter or
other problems.

I did buy some tail wheel springs and willl install them in the next couple
of weeks.

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: James Doyle [mailto:jdoyle1941@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:53 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Sam, That is one of the reasons Larry and I changed our rudder
configuration.. We added another bearing surface and went from the pedals to
the rudder bellcrank and then to the tail wheel. Then we removed the tail
wheel which solved a lot of problems.

Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.

I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around the
190+
mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop tip or a
cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to about
175
stopped it.

Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and the
tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn or two
and it never occurred again.

Newlywed Sam



-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Ryan,

While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was busy
answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have remarked
more
heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the controls
and the application of artificial damping. I also would have mentioned
that
the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150 mph, and
that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use BELOW
200
mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that speed.

I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter Larry
refers
to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less harmful
cousin
to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter, possibly due to
slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or the
typical
Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible that it
promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by applying
slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in the
dynamic
will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of the
controls
will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more energy --
higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to make the
flutter stop in that case.

I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got flutter in
mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen. Flutter
(okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George Peppard
flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI. The
great
Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude at
about
80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to them in
Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to bark
about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them and
whether
it could happen to the rest of us.

Please carry on,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing


Al, What about this one?

Ryan

From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods

I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.

Larry


--- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...> wrote:
When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...

When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!

Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the planet,
that is.

Al
N200AL


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/




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/



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/


David J. Gall
 

Al,

-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:01 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


David,

I thought MAYBE you would have a theroretical fix to your
theoretical problem...guess not.
You asked for a practical suggestion, not a theoretical one, so you got a
practical suggestion, not a theoretical one. And its not "my" "theoretical"
problem. It is everyone's real problem. It just hasn't been a big enough
problem to hit the headlines until you made it an "issue" instead of an
answer to Ryan's question. Luckily for us, the rest of us all learned about
Sam's (and Dave's) experience with flutter and now have a new respect for
the design and maintenance of rudders and rudder control systems.


"Just do it", catchy phrase...but not advice.
Au contraire! It IS advice, of the MOST practical kind. Bypass all the
theory, opinion, arguing, sniping, sarcasm, list-reading, time wasting,
typing, drawing, figuring, thinking, etc. Just do it. IF you want to....

Pretty easy to say
without providing any guidance on how to do it...
I DID provide guidance. I said to go look at James Postma's airplane and ask
him how he did it. What more do you want from me??!

I guess maybe some
day we will see how you incorporated it into YOUR plane...
Maybe, if I ever get around to building a Q200. Right now I'm overwhelmed
with school, divorce, and a Quickie (one) kit languishing in the garage. Try
not to hold it against me.

For my Quickie, I'm not worried about flutter until I upgrade from the Onan
to something a little more powerful, like a Rotax 503. If I go with a Rotax,
I'm thinking of filling the front half of the aluminum rudder tube with
lead. That way, I kill two birds with one stone: the Rotax requires added
weight in the tail, and the added speed says that balancing the rudder is
prudent. If I can get enough lead into that tube to balance the rudder and
if that's also enough to balance the plane, then all I'll have to do is
check the strength of the rudder hinges to make sure they can take the added
loads. Simple, elegant, cheap, and easy, and no carving, glassing, or
re-painting needed. IF the amount of weight works out....


The rest of that was pretty funny...!
Thank you. I'm hoping for a career change. I'm hanging up my clown suit for
a government job.


I think that's about all there is to say about that. (Sound of
Forest Gump)
"A Q200 is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you'll get????"
Pretty clever, and maybe true!


"Lucy, you have 'splaining to do"!
I think Lucy was eating those chocolates on the production line, wasn't she?


Have a nice dey
You, too.


David J. Gall


Al

- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote:
Al,

Give you a break? You're taking pot-shots at me and you want me to
give YOU
a break? Get real. Get off my case!

Your questions, in order, WITH common sense:

Q) Why hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in
the past 25
years or so)?

Oh, but they HAVE found it necessary to do "something" about
flutter.
Balancing the rudder is but one from among several good
alternative remedies
for flutter. You'd know that if you bothered to read any one of
the many
good references available, or even had you done me the courtesy of
reading
the excerpt that I took the time to type into this blasted box for
YOUR
benefit. It just happens that mass-balancing is one of the best
remedies, so
is considered by many to be a first choice. Read Wood, Teichmann,
Perkins &
Hage, Dommasch, etc.

Sam Hoskins found that "something" was necessary to cure the
flutter he
encountered three times, and he chose to tighten his cables. Larry
Koutz
found it necessary to fix a spring. Both found it necessary to
increase
vigilance on the condition of their rudder control systems. James
Postma
found it necessary to balance his rudder. Perhaps his was a
peremptory
strike against the possibility of flutter because he is a trained
engineer
with a good eye for things like that.

So, there's three examples of airplanes where something was
needed, and two
chose to call it a maintenance issue. But is it?

These are experimental airplanes; you can choose to handle it any
way you
want to. IF you want to strive for the same level of safety that
certification supposedly offers, then you might choose to pursue a
course of
action similar to what James Postma did. Or, you could learn from
the sly
wisdom of Bruce Crain and realize that only the top-performing one
percent
of Q200's will ever go fast enough (based on Sam's report) to even
make it
an issue. So placard your Vne at 175, or make a mandatory
maintenance
inspection prior to flight above 175 as an operating limitation.
Its YOUR
airplane, YOU decide how to handle it. If you want to be an
ostrich about
it, be my guest. If you end up in a smoking hole because of it,
well,
consider that you might have made the wrong choice. :-)

Q) How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major
design change to the rudder?

I wouldn't "suggest" a thing. If I wanted to balance the rudder on
my plane,
I'd just do it. It would never be a "major" design change to
completely
redesign such a small item as the rudder. However, were I to
redesign it I'd
be wasting my time; better to just ask James Postma what he did
and then
copy it!

Please don't tell me how screwed-up the FAA is, Al. I don't need
to be
reminded. Just YOU keep in mind that their motto is: "We're not
happy 'til
you're not happy." That said, there is something to be said in
favor of some
of the regulations. Even if we're not required to abide by them,
the
airworthiness regulations by-and-large do represent a solid
foundation for
good airplane design practices.

About the "lights-on" issue, maybe the guy sitting next to you was
gigging
you back for the way you treated him. Secretly, he's chuckling in
his hat at
how pissed off you got about such a petty little issue. He knows
how to push
your buttons, Al.

As for security, yes, it is good and, yes, even a little bit
amazing, that
no more FedEx drivers have been able to hijack their own planes
since flight
crew searches were instituted.


David J. Gall


-----Original Message-----
From: alfranken2001 [mailto:alfranken@m...]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 9:42 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: : Rudder balancing


O.K David, so...

If it's such a good idea why:

Hasn't anyone found it necessary to do it to their Q (in the
past 25
years or so)?

How would you suggest one do it, if they so desired...without a
major design change to the rudder?

By the way, there are a whole lot of things that the FAA thinks
is a
good idea, that a whole lot of people who fly airplanes don't
agree
with...I just flew with a guy who insisted on turning on the
WHEELWELL LIGHTS, because, AS THE FAA SUGGESTS...for collision
avoidance ALL lights be on...just another one of their bad
ideas...
every try to taxi next to a guy in a lineup with all his lights
and
strobes on?...BA used to do this and it is a real pain...They
must
be right though, no one has run into them yet...but of course, we
haven't run into anyone else either...how about security...since
they started searching flight crews years ago NONE of us have
hijacked an airplane...amazing isn't it...?

Yes, try to keep up...with what? Give me a break and please try
answer my 2 questions with some common sense suggestions, please?

Al


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/



Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

Sam,
How do you plan to prevent the major loads from being transferred to the
rudder bearing once the tailwheel springs are in place? Or will you
reinforce the lower rudder bearing?
Bob F.
N200QK

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hoskins [mailto:shoskins@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:29 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Jim, I have changed my setup also. My rudder cables now "split" just aft
of
the fuselage split line. One cable goes directly to the tail wheel horn,
the other directly to the rudder bellcrank. I included an adjusting
turnbuckle so I can keep the desired tension in the rudder cables. I have
a
couple of photos of it posted here.
http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/n202shdetail.html

I flew the Airventure Cup Race with this set-up, and no rudder flutter or
other problems.

I did buy some tail wheel springs and willl install them in the next
couple
of weeks.

Sam


-----Original Message-----
From: James Doyle [mailto:jdoyle1941@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:53 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Sam, That is one of the reasons Larry and I changed our rudder
configuration.. We added another bearing surface and went from the pedals
to
the rudder bellcrank and then to the tail wheel. Then we removed the tail
wheel which solved a lot of problems.

Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


> Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
> and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.
>
> I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around the
190+
> mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop tip or
a
> cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to about
175
> stopped it.
>
> Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and the
> tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn or
two
> and it never occurred again.
>
> Newlywed Sam
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing
>
>
> Ryan,
>
> While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was busy
> answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have remarked
more
> heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
> and the application of artificial damping. I also would have mentioned
that
> the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150 mph,
and
> that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use BELOW
200
> mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that speed.
>
> I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter Larry
refers
> to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less harmful
cousin
> to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter, possibly due
to
> slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or the
typical
> Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible that
it
> promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
> slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in the
dynamic
> will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of the
controls
> will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more energy --
> higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to make
the
> flutter stop in that case.
>
> I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got flutter in
> mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
> (okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George Peppard
> flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI. The
great
> Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude at
about
> 80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to them
in
> Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to bark
> about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them and
whether
> it could happen to the rest of us.
>
> Please carry on,
>
>
> David J. Gall
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
> > To: Q-LIST@...
> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing
> >
> >
> > Al, What about this one?
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
> > Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods
> >
> > I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> > --- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...> wrote:
> > > When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...
> > >
> > > When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!
> > >
> > > Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the planet,
> > > that is.
> > >
> > > Al
> > > N200AL
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>



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/



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Not sure that I was planning anything different in the bearing department.
Right now, the major loads are directed directly from the rudder pedal,
through the cables, to the tail wheel bellcrank. The adjusting turnbuckles
are installed on the cable that goes to the rudder bellcrank and adjusted to
just take the slack out. The forces on the rudder bearing, I think, are
loading forward, towards the meatier portion of the rudder bearing phenolic.

I supose it would be good to do a free body diagram of it all, but I don't
remember how.

The addition of the tail wheel springs should have no change on the rudder
loading, as I have it installed right now. I intend to mount the springs
directly to the cable splitter, that is, to the cable on the right, as shown
in this photo.
http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/aircraftdetail/rudder_splitter02.jpg
It's the one that goes to the tailwheel bellcrank.

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Farnam [mailto:bfarnam@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:30 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Sam,
How do you plan to prevent the major loads from being transferred to the
rudder bearing once the tailwheel springs are in place? Or will you
reinforce the lower rudder bearing?
Bob F.
N200QK
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hoskins [mailto:shoskins@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:29 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Jim, I have changed my setup also. My rudder cables now "split" just aft
of
the fuselage split line. One cable goes directly to the tail wheel horn,
the other directly to the rudder bellcrank. I included an adjusting
turnbuckle so I can keep the desired tension in the rudder cables. I have
a
couple of photos of it posted here.
http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/n202shdetail.html

I flew the Airventure Cup Race with this set-up, and no rudder flutter or
other problems.

I did buy some tail wheel springs and willl install them in the next
couple
of weeks.

Sam


-----Original Message-----
From: James Doyle [mailto:jdoyle1941@...]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:53 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


Sam, That is one of the reasons Larry and I changed our rudder
configuration.. We added another bearing surface and went from the pedals
to
the rudder bellcrank and then to the tail wheel. Then we removed the tail
wheel which solved a lot of problems.

Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: : Rudder balancing


> Buzz, flutter, call it what you will, but it shook the crap of the
aircraft
> and it scared the crap out of me. At least till it stopped.
>
> I had this happen on about three occasions on my Q-200, all around the
190+
> mph range. It shook so much I thought I lost a part of the prop tip or
a
> cylinder. Throttling back was no direct help, but slowing down to about
175
> stopped it.
>
> Root cause was the cable tension between the rudder bellcrank and the
> tailwheel was too loose. I tightened the cable turnbuckles a turn or
two
> and it never occurred again.
>
> Newlywed Sam
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J. Gall [mailto:David@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:44 PM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing
>
>
> Ryan,
>
> While I was busy researching and typing, I guess everyone else was busy
> answering off-the-cuff. Had I seen these replies, I would have remarked
more
> heavily on the parts of the text covering irreversibility of the
controls
> and the application of artificial damping. I also would have mentioned
that
> the speed range referenced in the text is for anything above 150 mph,
and
> that the simplified methods outlined in AC 63.629 are only for use BELOW
200
> mph, implying that flutter is certainly a possibility below that speed.
>
> I would suspect (no evidence -- wasn't there) that the flutter Larry
refers
> to was merely control surface "buzz," a related but far less harmful
cousin
> to flutter. However, it certainly could have been flutter, possibly due
to
> slop in the hinges and controls, well-lubricated hinges, and/or the
typical
> Quickie-style slack rudder cables. I think it is equally plausible that
it
> promptly stopped just by putting feet on the rudder pedals or by
applying
> slight pressure with feet that were already there. Any change in the
dynamic
> will shift the natural flutter frequency, and any stiffening of the
controls
> will shift the natural flutter frequency higher requiring more energy --
> higher airspeed -- to keep it fluttering. No need to slow down to make
the
> flutter stop in that case.
>
> I'm more inclined to believe ONE pilot who says, "hey, I got flutter in
> mine" than I am to believe a hundred guys who say it can't happen.
Flutter
> (okay, "aeroelasticity") was the subject of the great WWI George Peppard
> flick "The Blue Max." Lest we forget, NOTHING flew 150 mph in WWI. The
great
> Tony Bingelis almost lost his life to flutter in his Piel Emeraude at
about
> 80 kts. When Larry Koutz and Dave Ekstrom both say it happened to them
in
> Q's, I believe them. The next logical item on the agenda is not to bark
> about how "it can't be," but to find out why it almost bit them and
whether
> it could happen to the rest of us.
>
> Please carry on,
>
>
> David J. Gall
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tri-Q1 [mailto:rryan@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:48 PM
> > To: Q-LIST@...
> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Rudder balancing
> >
> >
> > Al, What about this one?
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > From: "L Koutz" <koutzl@b...>
> > Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Tail Wheel and Bellcrank Mods
> >
> > I got rudder flutter approaching 200 MPH in a dive.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> > --- In Q-LIST@..., "alfranken2001" <alfranken@m...> wrote:
> > > When balancing "a rudder"?.....forward of the hinge point...
> > >
> > > When balancing a "Quickie rudder"....forgedaboutit!
> > >
> > > Unless you plan to fly a lot faster than any other Q on the planet,
> > > that is.
> > >
> > > Al
> > > N200AL
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>



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/



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






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/