The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)


slottedflaps <quinnj@...>
 

Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at 90mph
with a passenger. The comments I've read regarding high landing
speeds of these aircraft relate to loss of elevator effectiveness
and / or canard stall on final approach, the only remedy being to add
a few units to the target landing speed.

Q200s appear to have a CG change over the original 2100D powered
version, and my experimentation with free flight tandem wing models
showed an increase in minimum speed with forward CG.

In a nutshell, I'm pondering a mechanism for the LS1 canard which
would produce a fowler flap action for the elevators with a slot to
recharge the boundary layer at the corner produced by a downward
deflected elevator.

So I've been looking through reports of deep stall vs. center of
pressure relative to CG; it goes without saying that adding lift to
the front wing only will disturb the safe stalling characteristics of
the original design. However, the stall of the rear wing appears to
be AOA dependent, and a slotted flap on the front wing might achieve
its max. lift at a similar AOA as the plain flap original. The belly
board could be integrated with the fowler flaps to move in the same
motion.

Anyhow, the Q2 seems to be a very fast aircraft with 100ish HP and an
efficient cruise prop, but the landing speed is a seriously high
price of admission to most people, myself included. I don't want to
impact the ground at 80mph if I have an engine failure.

My plans are to build a 1/3 scale Q2 and experiment with a scale LS1
canard and fowler type flaps, and find where the CG needs to be to be
safe. Getting enough down elevator could be be a challenge though.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I'd buy Henry Hurd's project if I was out
of school. :)

-Jeff Quinn


Leon - C <leon@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "slottedflaps" <quinnj@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:06 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)


Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at 90mph
with a passenger.
You are probably going to find that the general opinion of this group is
that you should.............Build/look for another plane!

We have been over this ground before and it kind of resulted in forming a
second group "Q-performance" to hash out modifications like this. I'm of
the camp that believes there is room for improvement in this area, but do
agree with most of the others here that if you want to fly something like a
Q in a reasonable amount of time stick to the plans and other proven
modifications.

Ask your question again on the Q-performance board and I think you will get
some feed back.
=======================
Leon McAtee
Building something like a Q-1


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Hi Jeff,

By all means, build your 1/3 scale R/C model. We will love to see it.

Bring it to Sullivan or Livermore and show us.

In the mean time, let us know where you are located and maybe someone can
invite you over to see a Q in progress - or flying.

Sam Hoskins

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/





_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
slottedflaps
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:07 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)



Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at 90mph
with a passenger. The comments I've read regarding high landing
speeds of these aircraft relate to loss of elevator effectiveness
and / or canard stall on final approach, the only remedy being to add
a few units to the target landing speed.

Q200s appear to have a CG change over the original 2100D powered
version, and my experimentation with free flight tandem wing models
showed an increase in minimum speed with forward CG.

In a nutshell, I'm pondering a mechanism for the LS1 canard which
would produce a fowler flap action for the elevators with a slot to
recharge the boundary layer at the corner produced by a downward
deflected elevator.

So I've been looking through reports of deep stall vs. center of
pressure relative to CG; it goes without saying that adding lift to
the front wing only will disturb the safe stalling characteristics of
the original design. However, the stall of the rear wing appears to
be AOA dependent, and a slotted flap on the front wing might achieve
its max. lift at a similar AOA as the plain flap original. The belly
board could be integrated with the fowler flaps to move in the same
motion.

Anyhow, the Q2 seems to be a very fast aircraft with 100ish HP and an
efficient cruise prop, but the landing speed is a seriously high
price of admission to most people, myself included. I don't want to
impact the ground at 80mph if I have an engine failure.

My plans are to build a 1/3 scale Q2 and experiment with a scale LS1
canard and fowler type flaps, and find where the CG needs to be to be
safe. Getting enough down elevator could be be a challenge though.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I'd buy Henry Hurd's project if I was out
of school. :)

-Jeff Quinn





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






_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "Q-LIST <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST> "
on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



_____


Mark/Pat Pearson/Pound <wlkabout@...>
 

Jeff:
What a cool sounding project. I would sure love to see it. You might
want to hold off until you get your bachelor's degree and use this project
toward a master's.
You might too want to think long and hard about what you want a project to
do. There is a saying in boat building: you can have an inexpensive boat, a
fast boat or a comfortable boat; in fact you can have any two of the three,
but you can't have all three. It might not be possible to have a (simple),
fast airplane without the "admission price" of high landing speed. Having a
mechanism to change the wings to allow for reduced landing speed will
certainly change the Q's from straight forward (simple) aircraft.
Good luck (make that: success) in what ever you decide to do. I think we
all look forward to meeting you at one of the TW get togethers.

Mark A. Pearson

slottedflaps wrote:


James Postma <james@...>
 

Jeff,

Please see my data on vortex generators. There is no stall. Approach speed
is 80 and touchdown is 70. If you do this, there is no need for the systems
you are designing.

James Postma
The Aircraft Factory and School
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
(2530 691-2979 cell

----- Original Message -----
From: "slottedflaps" <quinnj@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)


Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at 90mph
with a passenger. The comments I've read regarding high landing
speeds of these aircraft relate to loss of elevator effectiveness
and / or canard stall on final approach, the only remedy being to add
a few units to the target landing speed.

Q200s appear to have a CG change over the original 2100D powered
version, and my experimentation with free flight tandem wing models
showed an increase in minimum speed with forward CG.

In a nutshell, I'm pondering a mechanism for the LS1 canard which
would produce a fowler flap action for the elevators with a slot to
recharge the boundary layer at the corner produced by a downward
deflected elevator.

So I've been looking through reports of deep stall vs. center of
pressure relative to CG; it goes without saying that adding lift to
the front wing only will disturb the safe stalling characteristics of
the original design. However, the stall of the rear wing appears to
be AOA dependent, and a slotted flap on the front wing might achieve
its max. lift at a similar AOA as the plain flap original. The belly
board could be integrated with the fowler flaps to move in the same
motion.

Anyhow, the Q2 seems to be a very fast aircraft with 100ish HP and an
efficient cruise prop, but the landing speed is a seriously high
price of admission to most people, myself included. I don't want to
impact the ground at 80mph if I have an engine failure.

My plans are to build a 1/3 scale Q2 and experiment with a scale LS1
canard and fowler type flaps, and find where the CG needs to be to be
safe. Getting enough down elevator could be be a challenge though.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I'd buy Henry Hurd's project if I was out
of school. :)

-Jeff Quinn






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


Yahoo! Groups Links







damiantwinsport@...
 

Jeff, I too have been researching simple high lift devices with a hollow wing design. I am very interested in what you come up with as I now have the original plug and molds for Q2-200. I am contemplating buying a manual pre preg machine and setting up a small composites shop.

Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark/Pat Pearson/Pound <wlkabout@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:07:36 -0600
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)


Jeff:
What a cool sounding project. I would sure love to see it. You might
want to hold off until you get your bachelor's degree and use this project
toward a master's.
You might too want to think long and hard about what you want a project to
do. There is a saying in boat building: you can have an inexpensive boat, a
fast boat or a comfortable boat; in fact you can have any two of the three,
but you can't have all three. It might not be possible to have a (simple),
fast airplane without the "admission price" of high landing speed. Having a
mechanism to change the wings to allow for reduced landing speed will
certainly change the Q's from straight forward (simple) aircraft.
Good luck (make that: success) in what ever you decide to do. I think we
all look forward to meeting you at one of the TW get togethers.

Mark A. Pearson

slottedflaps wrote:





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


Yahoo! Groups Links


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jeff
Like Leon I also would like to see some more work done to optimise this airplane. The drag advantage of the stagger wing biplane is overlooked by most. This configuration allows up to double the aspect ratio and half the induced drag of a monoplane with the same span and wing area. The Quickie has shortened the wing span but still retains an advantage over the Lancair and this secret helps to explain the great performance of the Q compared to others.
I think the concept is overripe for further development and we started down that path on Q-Performance group but stuck for capacity to do the modelling using X-Plane or similar.I hope you may take it up.
Also there is a design glitch with the Q2 which accounts for most of the tales of ground handling problems. The remedy has been to apply aeleron reflex to reduce the lift on the wing . Mine was fixed up 3/8" and when I reduced it to zero I discovered what others had been complaining about. A lack of elevator authority below 90mph and less load on the tailwheel .So it is worth thinking about a proper design fix for this condition.A close comparison with the Q1 might show the way. Maybe the canard should be moved forward or the wingspan reduced.
I don't have the hardware to run X-Plane but if you get interested there are plenty of ideas to follow up.
I would like to see the stagger Q fully developed up to 4 place config.
Landing speed is more or less comparable with most other high performance sport planes and is just a matter of practice but the idea of reducing landing speed is worth chasing, but another glitch with the Q2-200 is that the elevator TE is in the forward CG and this limits scope for the use of a slotted flap.
Furter discussion belongs on Q-Performance list.
Regards,
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: slottedflaps
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)


Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at 90mph
with a passenger. The comments I've read regarding high landing
speeds of these aircraft relate to loss of elevator effectiveness
and / or canard stall on final approach, the only remedy being to add
a few units to the target landing speed.

Q200s appear to have a CG change over the original 2100D powered
version, and my experimentation with free flight tandem wing models
showed an increase in minimum speed with forward CG.

In a nutshell, I'm pondering a mechanism for the LS1 canard which
would produce a fowler flap action for the elevators with a slot to
recharge the boundary layer at the corner produced by a downward
deflected elevator.

So I've been looking through reports of deep stall vs. center of
pressure relative to CG; it goes without saying that adding lift to
the front wing only will disturb the safe stalling characteristics of
the original design. However, the stall of the rear wing appears to
be AOA dependent, and a slotted flap on the front wing might achieve
its max. lift at a similar AOA as the plain flap original. The belly
board could be integrated with the fowler flaps to move in the same
motion.

Anyhow, the Q2 seems to be a very fast aircraft with 100ish HP and an
efficient cruise prop, but the landing speed is a seriously high
price of admission to most people, myself included. I don't want to
impact the ground at 80mph if I have an engine failure.

My plans are to build a 1/3 scale Q2 and experiment with a scale LS1
canard and fowler type flaps, and find where the CG needs to be to be
safe. Getting enough down elevator could be be a challenge though.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I'd buy Henry Hurd's project if I was out
of school. :)

-Jeff Quinn





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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

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

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wladimir Kummer de Paula
 

Hi,

This is my first posting...I just thought this subject so interesting...Ive been designing a Q type aircraft, initially monoplace to test the concept. My approach to lowering the stall speed would be plain and simple more wing(s) area. High lift device would tear down one of the most beautiful aspects of this design that is simplicity. Also Id use a almost zero pitch down moment airfoil in the main wing so it would not load down the canard thus allowing it to be smaller. In fact I have this airfoil designed by myself. The canard would be rectangular planform for ease of construction and swept back about 15 degrees. This would make the wheels closer to the balance point. Also it would have enough toe in (about 3degress) and negative camber (something like 5-7 degrees). The canard airfoil has a usual coefficient of moment so to unload the wing and allowing it to be smaller. The stall speed is dictated mostly by the canard loading and airfoil so I would adjust this to get a reasonable stalling speed (say 55mph). Vortex generators at the main wing would keep it flying avoiding the so feared deep stalled condition.
The fuse could be built using alu angles/tubes riveted as the main structure and foam/glass for final shaping. I think this is the most crash resistant method of building and if done right....light as well.
The wing would use the proven aeromodelling/Rutan concept, but for the spar Id use something more newer like a PVC shear web and carbon rods. Using this the wing sheeting could be as simple (and cheap) as brown (Kraft) paper with epoxi since this type of spar building is very very strong and flexible. A second spar at the aileron line could account for the torsional loads. This kind of sheeting can become as though as a nail....In fact Ive used this many times for my model airplanes....And is sooo easily repaired. The ailerons and elevators are full span for most efficiency and lower weights (no rods necessary).

Wladimir in Brazil.....



Peter Harris wrote:

Jeff
Like Leon I also would like to see some more work done to optimise this airplane. The drag advantage of the stagger wing biplane is overlooked by most. This configuration allows up to double the aspect ratio and half the induced drag of a monoplane with the same span and wing area. The Quickie has shortened the wing span but still retains an advantage over the Lancair and this secret helps to explain the great performance of the Q compared to others.
I think the concept is overripe for further development and we started down that path on Q-Performance group but stuck for capacity to do the modelling using X-Plane or similar.I hope you may take it up.
Also there is a design glitch with the Q2 which accounts for most of the tales of ground handling problems. The remedy has been to apply aeleron reflex to reduce the lift on the wing . Mine was fixed up 3/8" and when I reduced it to zero I discovered what others had been complaining about. A lack of elevator authority below 90mph and less load on the tailwheel .So it is worth thinking about a proper design fix for this condition.A close comparison with the Q1 might show the way. Maybe the canard should be moved forward or the wingspan reduced.
I don't have the hardware to run X-Plane but if you get interested there are plenty of ideas to follow up.
I would like to see the stagger Q fully developed up to 4 place config.
Landing speed is more or less comparable with most other high performance sport planes and is just a matter of practice but the idea of reducing landing speed is worth chasing, but another glitch with the Q2-200 is that the elevator TE is in the forward CG and this limits scope for the use of a slotted flap.
Furter discussion belongs on Q-Performance list.
Regards,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: slottedflaps
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)


Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at 90mph
with a passenger. The comments I've read regarding high landing
speeds of these aircraft relate to loss of elevator effectiveness
and / or canard stall on final approach, the only remedy being to add
a few units to the target landing speed.
Q200s appear to have a CG change over the original 2100D powered
version, and my experimentation with free flight tandem wing models
showed an increase in minimum speed with forward CG.
In a nutshell, I'm pondering a mechanism for the LS1 canard which
would produce a fowler flap action for the elevators with a slot to
recharge the boundary layer at the corner produced by a downward
deflected elevator.
So I've been looking through reports of deep stall vs. center of
pressure relative to CG; it goes without saying that adding lift to
the front wing only will disturb the safe stalling characteristics of
the original design. However, the stall of the rear wing appears to
be AOA dependent, and a slotted flap on the front wing might achieve
its max. lift at a similar AOA as the plain flap original. The belly
board could be integrated with the fowler flaps to move in the same
motion.

Anyhow, the Q2 seems to be a very fast aircraft with 100ish HP and an
efficient cruise prop, but the landing speed is a seriously high
price of admission to most people, myself included. I don't want to
impact the ground at 80mph if I have an engine failure.

My plans are to build a 1/3 scale Q2 and experiment with a scale LS1
canard and fowler type flaps, and find where the CG needs to be to be
safe. Getting enough down elevator could be be a challenge though.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I'd buy Henry Hurd's project if I was out
of school. :)

-Jeff Quinn





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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------






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




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "Q-LIST
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST>" on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.





__________ Informao do NOD32 IMON 1.1276 (20051104) __________

Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 sistema antivrus
http://www.eset.com.br


Jeff Quinn <quinnj@...>
 

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:

Jeff
Like Leon I also would like to see some more work done to optimise
this airplane. The drag advantage of the stagger wing biplane is
overlooked by most. Furter discussion belongs on Q-Performance list.
Regards,
Peter
The Q2 gives up a bit to the Lancair in fuselage design, specifically
aft the passenger bubble, cowl, fuselage-canopy leading edge
junction, tailwheel. Fillets are totally lacking on the canard /
fuselage junction and the vertical stabilizer needs a fairing to the
tailcone. Winglets for the main wing are scorned by most tandem wing
experts but anti-drag results from a slight toe-out on a winglet that
harness vortex energy like a sail on a yacht. Don't laugh, it has
been proven in the bizjet world, most every modern bizjet has
winglets for this reason. The rear wingspan effectively increases
with winglets, and so does the aspect and L/D ratio. Canard wheel
pants are elementary and could themselves serve as vortex
supressing / harnessing devices. Don't even get me started on the
shortcomings of this airplane's "landing configuration", what with a
plain flap on a highly loaded laminar flow wing which was not
designed for max l/d efficiency with said flap disturbing the
boundary layer with its abrupt surface change.

Let's face it, the Q2 was an ameteur job with two engineers who made
it workable. Lancair, as a company, put far more resources into the
L320 than QAC into the Q2.

Please give me the link to the Q performance group, it is not on the
quickebuilders page or in the links in this group. I gurantee I'll
just lurk here from now on until I get my hands on a real Q2. :)

Thanks.

-Jeff


REBECCA SIMPSON
 

Wladimir,

I have a modified TW that started from dragonfly plans and uses a 26
ft LS1 as well as many other mods that I like. Anyway, It is rated
as having a stall speed at 52MPH. final approach at 70 mph. I bought
as a project with no plans. There are pics in the photo section
folder Phoenix N1007P. It uses a C90 1015 empty - 1500 gross POH
indicates cruise at 145 mph @2500 rpm. Jeff LeTempt from the group
has test flown it and could tell you more about it that I can. I
think the speeds you are looking for are obtainable....
Cheers,
Tad

--- In Q-LIST@..., Wladimir Kummer de Paula
<wladimirkummer@u...> wrote:

Hi,

This is my first posting...I just thought this subject so
interesting...I´ve been designing a Q type aircraft, initially
monoplace
to test the concept. My approach to lowering the stall speed would
be
plain and simple more wing(s) area. High lift device would tear
down one
of the most beautiful aspects of this design that is simplicity.
Also
I´d use a almost zero pitch down moment airfoil in the main wing
so it
would not load down the canard thus allowing it to be smaller. In
fact I
have this airfoil designed by myself. The canard would be
rectangular
planform for ease of construction and swept back about 15 degrees.
This
would make the wheels closer to the balance point. Also it would
have
enough toe in (about 3degress) and negative camber (something like
5-7
degrees). The canard airfoil has a usual coefficient of moment so
to
unload the wing and allowing it to be smaller. The stall speed is
dictated mostly by the canard loading and airfoil so I would
adjust this
to get a reasonable stalling speed (say 55mph). Vortex generators
at
the main wing would keep it flying avoiding the so feared deep
stalled
condition.
The fuse could be built using alu angles/tubes riveted as the main
structure and foam/glass for final shaping. I think this is the
most
crash resistant method of building and if done right....light as
well.
The wing would use the proven aeromodelling/Rutan concept, but for
the
spar Id use something more newer like a PVC shear web and carbon
rods.
Using this the wing sheeting could be as simple (and cheap) as
brown
(Kraft) paper with epoxi since this type of spar building is very
very
strong and flexible. A second spar at the aileron line could
account for
the torsional loads. This kind of sheeting can become as though as
a
nail....In fact I´ve used this many times for my model
airplanes....And
is sooo easily repaired. The ailerons and elevators are full span
for
most efficiency and lower weights (no rods necessary).

Wladimir in Brazil.....



Peter Harris wrote:
Jeff
Like Leon I also would like to see some more work done to
optimise
this airplane. The drag advantage of the stagger wing biplane is
overlooked by most. This configuration allows up to double the
aspect
ratio and half the induced drag of a monoplane with the same
span and
wing area. The Quickie has shortened the wing span but still
retains
an advantage over the Lancair and this secret helps to explain
the
great performance of the Q compared to others.
I think the concept is overripe for further development and we
started
down that path on Q-Performance group but stuck for capacity to
do the
modelling using X-Plane or similar.I hope you may take it up.
Also there is a design glitch with the Q2 which accounts for
most of
the tales of ground handling problems. The remedy has been to
apply
aeleron reflex to reduce the lift on the wing . Mine was fixed
up 3/8"
and when I reduced it to zero I discovered what others had been
complaining about. A lack of elevator authority below 90mph and
less
load on the tailwheel .So it is worth thinking about a proper
design
fix for this condition.A close comparison with the Q1 might show
the
way. Maybe the canard should be moved forward or the wingspan
reduced.
I don't have the hardware to run X-Plane but if you get
interested
there are plenty of ideas to follow up.
I would like to see the stagger Q fully developed up to 4 place
config.
Landing speed is more or less comparable with most other high
performance sport planes and is just a matter of practice but
the idea
of reducing landing speed is worth chasing, but another glitch
with
the Q2-200 is that the elevator TE is in the forward CG and this
limits scope for the use of a slotted flap.
Furter discussion belongs on Q-Performance list.
Regards,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: slottedflaps
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for
tandem
wing aircraft (long)


Good evening Quickie group,

I'm a third year mechanical engineering student who wants a
corvair
powered Q2 but I'm unwilling to fly an aircraft that lands at
90mph
with a passenger. The comments I've read regarding high
landing
speeds of these aircraft relate to loss of elevator
effectiveness
and / or canard stall on final approach, the only remedy being
to add
a few units to the target landing speed.

Q200s appear to have a CG change over the original 2100D
powered
version, and my experimentation with free flight tandem wing
models
showed an increase in minimum speed with forward CG.

In a nutshell, I'm pondering a mechanism for the LS1 canard
which
would produce a fowler flap action for the elevators with a
slot to
recharge the boundary layer at the corner produced by a
downward
deflected elevator.

So I've been looking through reports of deep stall vs. center
of
pressure relative to CG; it goes without saying that adding
lift to
the front wing only will disturb the safe stalling
characteristics of
the original design. However, the stall of the rear wing
appears to
be AOA dependent, and a slotted flap on the front wing might
achieve
its max. lift at a similar AOA as the plain flap original.
The belly
board could be integrated with the fowler flaps to move in the
same
motion.

Anyhow, the Q2 seems to be a very fast aircraft with 100ish HP
and an
efficient cruise prop, but the landing speed is a seriously
high
price of admission to most people, myself included. I don't
want to
impact the ground at 80mph if I have an engine failure.

My plans are to build a 1/3 scale Q2 and experiment with a
scale LS1
canard and fowler type flaps, and find where the CG needs to
be to be
safe. Getting enough down elevator could be be a challenge
though.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I'd buy Henry Hurd's project if I
was out
of school. :)

-Jeff Quinn





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





-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

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

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


-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "Q-LIST
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST>" on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?
subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.





__________ Informação do NOD32 IMON 1.1276 (20051104) __________

Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 sistema antivírus
http://www.eset.com.br


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Good stuff Jeff. We have discussed some but not all of these ideas before on Q-Performance .There is surely plenty that can be done to reduce parasitic drag . Sam Hoskins has made a beautiful job of his wheel pants. Unfortunately it takes a quantum leap to move from concept to application. I hope to go that way as soon as the Jab 6 engine is bedded.

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Quinn
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:
>
> Jeff
> Like Leon I also would like to see some more work done to optimise
this airplane. The drag advantage of the stagger wing biplane is
overlooked by most. Furter discussion belongs on Q-Performance list.
> Regards,
> Peter

The Q2 gives up a bit to the Lancair in fuselage design, specifically
aft the passenger bubble, cowl, fuselage-canopy leading edge
junction, tailwheel. Fillets are totally lacking on the canard /
fuselage junction and the vertical stabilizer needs a fairing to the
tailcone. Winglets for the main wing are scorned by most tandem wing
experts but anti-drag results from a slight toe-out on a winglet that
harness vortex energy like a sail on a yacht. Don't laugh, it has
been proven in the bizjet world, most every modern bizjet has
winglets for this reason. The rear wingspan effectively increases
with winglets, and so does the aspect and L/D ratio. Canard wheel
pants are elementary and could themselves serve as vortex
supressing / harnessing devices. Don't even get me started on the
shortcomings of this airplane's "landing configuration", what with a
plain flap on a highly loaded laminar flow wing which was not
designed for max l/d efficiency with said flap disturbing the
boundary layer with its abrupt surface change.

Let's face it, the Q2 was an ameteur job with two engineers who made
it workable. Lancair, as a company, put far more resources into the
L320 than QAC into the Q2.

Please give me the link to the Q performance group, it is not on the
quickebuilders page or in the links in this group. I gurantee I'll
just lurk here from now on until I get my hands on a real Q2. :)

Thanks.

-Jeff





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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

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

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Jeff the T tail is a Q2/200 option which has probably not been fully exploited and very few about. Note we should be sharing this stuff on the Q-Performance group not on the Q-LIST.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Quinn
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)



Well I got permission to access the q performance group and crossed
upon information about tri-foil concepts. Yeow, what a different
approach to trimming the lift machine. In my R/C past, flying
neutrally stable highly precise aerobatic planes which would always be
in trim as long as it was where the pilot left it, the concept of
center of pressure vs. center of lift became a big deal.

Anynow, the cp of the Q2 is a ways back from the CG and the resultant
inefficient loading of the rear wing vs. the canard becomes an induced
drag vice compared to an optimized conventional craft. My crazy mind
began wondering about installing a trimming device atop the vertical
stabilizer of a Q2 and reducing the front incidence angle on the canard.

Long story short, I tried this on a tandem wing freeflight model. The
result is that both the canard flaps as well as the former ailerons on
the main wing can be deflected down to serve as flaps, trim being
maintained by the T tail horizontal stab. The model flies slower and
can take a further aft CG with this (very small) added flying surface.

Question becomes, is the parasitic drag of the tiny horizontal
stabilizer less than the induced drag of a trimmed canard system?
Barnaby Wainfan of Kitplanes wrote an excellent article on this subject
some years ago, conclusion being the so called drag advantage of canard
platforms (trimming surface lifts rather than applies weight) erodes
due to the induced drag disadvatage of having one wing always stall
well before the other.

The tri-foil concept removes the canard induced drag vice , but how
would it work on a tandem wing, rather than traditional Buck Roders
style canard? Piaggio knows the answer to the latter, perhaps I should
pursue the answer to the former........ muahahahahaha
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it takes a quantum leap to move from concept to
application. >
> Peter
> ----- Original Message -----






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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

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

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Arthur & Margaret <warreen@...>
 

Hi lift devices do work I read in a eaa magazine where a guy in the USA had
fitted leading edge aerofoils on his canard on his long-EZ which had reduced
landing speed by about 10 knots. In kitplanes their is a ad for pressure
operated slats from "Dedalius Aviation INC" www.dedaliusaviation.com
I wrote this people a number of years ago about reducing landing speed in Q2
and the reply was its should work ,really that's what EXPERIMENTAL is all
about.Arthur Boyd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Quinn" <quinnj@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:59 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:

Jeff
Like Leon I also would like to see some more work done to optimise
this airplane. The drag advantage of the stagger wing biplane is
overlooked by most. Furter discussion belongs on Q-Performance list.
Regards,
Peter
The Q2 gives up a bit to the Lancair in fuselage design, specifically
aft the passenger bubble, cowl, fuselage-canopy leading edge
junction, tailwheel. Fillets are totally lacking on the canard /
fuselage junction and the vertical stabilizer needs a fairing to the
tailcone. Winglets for the main wing are scorned by most tandem wing
experts but anti-drag results from a slight toe-out on a winglet that
harness vortex energy like a sail on a yacht. Don't laugh, it has
been proven in the bizjet world, most every modern bizjet has
winglets for this reason. The rear wingspan effectively increases
with winglets, and so does the aspect and L/D ratio. Canard wheel
pants are elementary and could themselves serve as vortex
supressing / harnessing devices. Don't even get me started on the
shortcomings of this airplane's "landing configuration", what with a
plain flap on a highly loaded laminar flow wing which was not
designed for max l/d efficiency with said flap disturbing the
boundary layer with its abrupt surface change.

Let's face it, the Q2 was an ameteur job with two engineers who made
it workable. Lancair, as a company, put far more resources into the
L320 than QAC into the Q2.

Please give me the link to the Q performance group, it is not on the
quickebuilders page or in the links in this group. I gurantee I'll
just lurk here from now on until I get my hands on a real Q2. :)

Thanks.

-Jeff






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


Yahoo! Groups Links






Jeff Quinn <quinnj@...>
 

Well I got permission to access the q performance group and crossed
upon information about tri-foil concepts. Yeow, what a different
approach to trimming the lift machine. In my R/C past, flying
neutrally stable highly precise aerobatic planes which would always be
in trim as long as it was where the pilot left it, the concept of
center of pressure vs. center of lift became a big deal.

Anynow, the cp of the Q2 is a ways back from the CG and the resultant
inefficient loading of the rear wing vs. the canard becomes an induced
drag vice compared to an optimized conventional craft. My crazy mind
began wondering about installing a trimming device atop the vertical
stabilizer of a Q2 and reducing the front incidence angle on the canard.

Long story short, I tried this on a tandem wing freeflight model. The
result is that both the canard flaps as well as the former ailerons on
the main wing can be deflected down to serve as flaps, trim being
maintained by the T tail horizontal stab. The model flies slower and
can take a further aft CG with this (very small) added flying surface.

Question becomes, is the parasitic drag of the tiny horizontal
stabilizer less than the induced drag of a trimmed canard system?
Barnaby Wainfan of Kitplanes wrote an excellent article on this subject
some years ago, conclusion being the so called drag advantage of canard
platforms (trimming surface lifts rather than applies weight) erodes
due to the induced drag disadvatage of having one wing always stall
well before the other.

The tri-foil concept removes the canard induced drag vice , but how
would it work on a tandem wing, rather than traditional Buck Roders
style canard? Piaggio knows the answer to the latter, perhaps I should
pursue the answer to the former........ muahahahahaha
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:

Unfortunately it takes a quantum leap to move from concept to
application. >
Peter
----- Original Message -----


Arthur & Margaret <warreen@...>
 

Jeff,Great opportunities come to those who make the most of small ones.
Arthur

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Quinn" <quinnj@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)



Well I got permission to access the q performance group and crossed
upon information about tri-foil concepts. Yeow, what a different
approach to trimming the lift machine. In my R/C past, flying
neutrally stable highly precise aerobatic planes which would always be
in trim as long as it was where the pilot left it, the concept of
center of pressure vs. center of lift became a big deal.

Anynow, the cp of the Q2 is a ways back from the CG and the resultant
inefficient loading of the rear wing vs. the canard becomes an induced
drag vice compared to an optimized conventional craft. My crazy mind
began wondering about installing a trimming device atop the vertical
stabilizer of a Q2 and reducing the front incidence angle on the canard.

Long story short, I tried this on a tandem wing freeflight model. The
result is that both the canard flaps as well as the former ailerons on
the main wing can be deflected down to serve as flaps, trim being
maintained by the T tail horizontal stab. The model flies slower and
can take a further aft CG with this (very small) added flying surface.

Question becomes, is the parasitic drag of the tiny horizontal
stabilizer less than the induced drag of a trimmed canard system?
Barnaby Wainfan of Kitplanes wrote an excellent article on this subject
some years ago, conclusion being the so called drag advantage of canard
platforms (trimming surface lifts rather than applies weight) erodes
due to the induced drag disadvatage of having one wing always stall
well before the other.

The tri-foil concept removes the canard induced drag vice , but how
would it work on a tandem wing, rather than traditional Buck Roders
style canard? Piaggio knows the answer to the latter, perhaps I should
pursue the answer to the former........ muahahahahaha
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:

Unfortunately it takes a quantum leap to move from concept to
application. >
Peter
----- Original Message -----






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


Yahoo! Groups Links






David J. Gall
 

Wladimir,

Your camber and toe-in numbers are incorrect. You don't want toe-in, you don't want negative camber, and you don't want anything near 3 degrees for any of these angles. Camber should be neutral to slightly positive (0-2 degrees) and toe should be neutral to slightly toe-out (0-2 degrees). Tires, depending on the tire design, will skid at angles between three and seven degrees, analogous to airfoils stalling at critical angle of attack. Mounting the tire with three degrees toe (in or out) means that the side force on that tire will be approximately 40-90% of the normal load on that tire... NOT GOOD! See an auto mechanic about tire angles for wheel alignment and you'll find them talking about angles in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 degree for camber and toe measurements....

Kraft paper makes an excessively heavy part, regardless of its suitability in other respects. Better to stick with the tried and proven. I've already commented on the remainder of your ideas so I wish you luck in your researches.


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wladimir Kummer de Paula" <wladimirkummer@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:38:18 -0200


Hi,

This is my first posting...I just thought this subject so
interesting...I´ve been designing a Q type aircraft, initially monoplace
to test the concept. My approach to lowering the stall speed would be
plain and simple more wing(s) area. High lift device would tear down one
of the most beautiful aspects of this design that is simplicity. Also
I´d use a almost zero pitch down moment airfoil in the main wing so it
would not load down the canard thus allowing it to be smaller. In fact I
have this airfoil designed by myself. The canard would be rectangular
planform for ease of construction and swept back about 15 degrees. This
would make the wheels closer to the balance point. Also it would have
enough toe in (about 3degress) and negative camber (something like 5-7
degrees). The canard airfoil has a usual coefficient of moment so to
unload the wing and allowing it to be smaller. The stall speed is
dictated mostly by the canard loading and airfoil so I would adjust this
to get a reasonable stalling speed (say 55mph). Vortex generators at
the main wing would keep it flying avoiding the so feared deep stalled
condition.
The fuse could be built using alu angles/tubes riveted as the main
structure and foam/glass for final shaping. I think this is the most
crash resistant method of building and if done right....light as well.
The wing would use the proven aeromodelling/Rutan concept, but for the
spar Id use something more newer like a PVC shear web and carbon rods.
Using this the wing sheeting could be as simple (and cheap) as brown
(Kraft) paper with epoxi since this type of spar building is very very
strong and flexible. A second spar at the aileron line could account for
the torsional loads. This kind of sheeting can become as though as a
nail....In fact I´ve used this many times for my model airplanes....And
is sooo easily repaired. The ailerons and elevators are full span for
most efficiency and lower weights (no rods necessary).

Wladimir in Brazil.....


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Barnaby Wainfan wrote an article for Kit Palnes in which he compared a single with a biplane and a triplane . The triplane allows unloading our canard (which would no longer be called a canard) which reduces drag . and it was the fastest setup. Way to go but difficult to design . Our T tail is just a trim device as I understand it.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: James Postma
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing aircraft (long)


Well Rene's T tail goes like stink and no one can explain why.

James Postma
The Aircraft Factory and School
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
(2530 691-2979 cell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem
wing aircraft (long)


> Jeff the T tail is a Q2/200 option which has probably not been fully
exploited and very few about. Note we should be sharing this stuff on the
Q-Performance group not on the Q-LIST.
> Peter
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Quinn
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:25 PM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem
wing aircraft (long)
>
>
>
> Well I got permission to access the q performance group and crossed
> upon information about tri-foil concepts. Yeow, what a different
> approach to trimming the lift machine. In my R/C past, flying
> neutrally stable highly precise aerobatic planes which would always be
> in trim as long as it was where the pilot left it, the concept of
> center of pressure vs. center of lift became a big deal.
>
> Anynow, the cp of the Q2 is a ways back from the CG and the resultant
> inefficient loading of the rear wing vs. the canard becomes an induced
> drag vice compared to an optimized conventional craft. My crazy mind
> began wondering about installing a trimming device atop the vertical
> stabilizer of a Q2 and reducing the front incidence angle on the canard.
>
> Long story short, I tried this on a tandem wing freeflight model. The
> result is that both the canard flaps as well as the former ailerons on
> the main wing can be deflected down to serve as flaps, trim being
> maintained by the T tail horizontal stab. The model flies slower and
> can take a further aft CG with this (very small) added flying surface.
>
> Question becomes, is the parasitic drag of the tiny horizontal
> stabilizer less than the induced drag of a trimmed canard system?
> Barnaby Wainfan of Kitplanes wrote an excellent article on this subject
> some years ago, conclusion being the so called drag advantage of canard
> platforms (trimming surface lifts rather than applies weight) erodes
> due to the induced drag disadvatage of having one wing always stall
> well before the other.
>
> The tri-foil concept removes the canard induced drag vice , but how
> would it work on a tandem wing, rather than traditional Buck Roders
> style canard? Piaggio knows the answer to the latter, perhaps I should
> pursue the answer to the former........ muahahahahaha
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it takes a quantum leap to move from concept to
> application. >
> > Peter
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

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

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


James Postma <james@...>
 

Well Rene's T tail goes like stink and no one can explain why.

James Postma
The Aircraft Factory and School
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
(2530 691-2979 cell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem
wing aircraft (long)


Jeff the T tail is a Q2/200 option which has probably not been fully
exploited and very few about. Note we should be sharing this stuff on the
Q-Performance group not on the Q-LIST.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Quinn
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem
wing aircraft (long)



Well I got permission to access the q performance group and crossed
upon information about tri-foil concepts. Yeow, what a different
approach to trimming the lift machine. In my R/C past, flying
neutrally stable highly precise aerobatic planes which would always be
in trim as long as it was where the pilot left it, the concept of
center of pressure vs. center of lift became a big deal.

Anynow, the cp of the Q2 is a ways back from the CG and the resultant
inefficient loading of the rear wing vs. the canard becomes an induced
drag vice compared to an optimized conventional craft. My crazy mind
began wondering about installing a trimming device atop the vertical
stabilizer of a Q2 and reducing the front incidence angle on the canard.

Long story short, I tried this on a tandem wing freeflight model. The
result is that both the canard flaps as well as the former ailerons on
the main wing can be deflected down to serve as flaps, trim being
maintained by the T tail horizontal stab. The model flies slower and
can take a further aft CG with this (very small) added flying surface.

Question becomes, is the parasitic drag of the tiny horizontal
stabilizer less than the induced drag of a trimmed canard system?
Barnaby Wainfan of Kitplanes wrote an excellent article on this subject
some years ago, conclusion being the so called drag advantage of canard
platforms (trimming surface lifts rather than applies weight) erodes
due to the induced drag disadvatage of having one wing always stall
well before the other.

The tri-foil concept removes the canard induced drag vice , but how
would it work on a tandem wing, rather than traditional Buck Roders
style canard? Piaggio knows the answer to the latter, perhaps I should
pursue the answer to the former........ muahahahahaha
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it takes a quantum leap to move from concept to
application. >
> Peter
> ----- Original Message -----






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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

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

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----








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


Yahoo! Groups Links







James Postma <james@...>
 

David has this dead right on.

As to reducing the stall/ landing speed - you can get it down by 10 with my
VG's. 60 mph is the slowest I have been able to go.

James Postma
The Aircraft Factory and School
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
(2530 691-2979 cell

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gall" <David@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)


Wladimir,

Your camber and toe-in numbers are incorrect. You don't want toe-in, you
don't want negative camber, and you don't want anything near 3 degrees for
any of these angles. Camber should be neutral to slightly positive (0-2
degrees) and toe should be neutral to slightly toe-out (0-2 degrees). Tires,
depending on the tire design, will skid at angles between three and seven
degrees, analogous to airfoils stalling at critical angle of attack.
Mounting the tire with three degrees toe (in or out) means that the side
force on that tire will be approximately 40-90% of the normal load on that
tire... NOT GOOD! See an auto mechanic about tire angles for wheel alignment
and you'll find them talking about angles in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 degree
for camber and toe measurements....

Kraft paper makes an excessively heavy part, regardless of its suitability
in other respects. Better to stick with the tried and proven. I've already
commented on the remainder of your ideas so I wish you luck in your
researches.


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wladimir Kummer de Paula" <wladimirkummer@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem wing
aircraft (long)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:38:18 -0200


Hi,

This is my first posting...I just thought this subject so
interesting...Ive been designing a Q type aircraft, initially monoplace
to test the concept. My approach to lowering the stall speed would be
plain and simple more wing(s) area. High lift device would tear down one
of the most beautiful aspects of this design that is simplicity. Also
Id use a almost zero pitch down moment airfoil in the main wing so it
would not load down the canard thus allowing it to be smaller. In fact I
have this airfoil designed by myself. The canard would be rectangular
planform for ease of construction and swept back about 15 degrees. This
would make the wheels closer to the balance point. Also it would have
enough toe in (about 3degress) and negative camber (something like 5-7
degrees). The canard airfoil has a usual coefficient of moment so to
unload the wing and allowing it to be smaller. The stall speed is
dictated mostly by the canard loading and airfoil so I would adjust this
to get a reasonable stalling speed (say 55mph). Vortex generators at
the main wing would keep it flying avoiding the so feared deep stalled
condition.
The fuse could be built using alu angles/tubes riveted as the main
structure and foam/glass for final shaping. I think this is the most
crash resistant method of building and if done right....light as well.
The wing would use the proven aeromodelling/Rutan concept, but for the
spar Id use something more newer like a PVC shear web and carbon rods.
Using this the wing sheeting could be as simple (and cheap) as brown
(Kraft) paper with epoxi since this type of spar building is very very
strong and flexible. A second spar at the aileron line could account for
the torsional loads. This kind of sheeting can become as though as a
nail....In fact Ive used this many times for my model airplanes....And
is sooo easily repaired. The ailerons and elevators are full span for
most efficiency and lower weights (no rods necessary).

Wladimir in Brazil.....


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


Yahoo! Groups Links


Rene Robertson <q2robertson@...>
 

There are now 4 out 4 Q's at Abbotsford with T-Tails and 3 are proven very well flying aircraft with better pitch stability than reflexor only Q's.
Thanks James
Rene
Q2 C-FBWV

James Postma <james@...> wrote:
Well Rene's T tail goes like stink and no one can explain why.

James Postma
The Aircraft Factory and School
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
(2530 691-2979 cell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: The difficulty of high-lift devices for tandem
wing aircraft (long)


Jeff the T tail is a Q2/200 option which has probably not been fully
exploited and very few about. Note we should be sharing this stuff on the
Q-Performance group not on the Q-LIST.
Peter
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos