Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

Anyone here ever hear of anyone making the fuel tank taller in their Q
to fit more fuel in (solo flying) and then extending the top of the
canopy to make enough room for the pilot so he doesn't hit his head on
the glass?

I haven't studied how this might affect seating yet, if the tank is
raised whether the seating would become difficult to use the brake and
rudder. If someone has either studied or done so, please email me off
list.

Christopher


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Christopher, I have 32 gallons, which gives me a 750+ mile range. I did
endeavor to keep the tanks as large as possible, but the header and main are
close to stock. I think the Q-200 plans did call for a smaller header, but
I think that was solely to allow access to the engine mounting bolts. With
a little finagling I was able to keep it at 6.5 gallons. There are lots of
header tanks shown in the old Q-Talks. Here's what I have.

Header = 6.5

Main = 16.5

Aux = 9

Sam Hoskins Q-200



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:42 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.



Anyone here ever hear of anyone making the fuel tank taller in their Q
to fit more fuel in (solo flying) and then extending the top of the
canopy to make enough room for the pilot so he doesn't hit his head on
the glass?

I haven't studied how this might affect seating yet, if the tank is
raised whether the seating would become difficult to use the brake and
rudder. If someone has either studied or done so, please email me off
list.

Christopher


JMasal@...
 

Are you planning to fly nonstop LAX to NYC frequently? If so, Sam's setup
wouldn't work for you. Just don't put a tank OVER the wing like one of our
dearly departed did.

j.


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

When you add it up like that I can clearly see that is really plenty
of fuel, I'd be hard pressed to fly that long without a stop
somewhere but I like the idea of extra range to fly around weather,
if I do something stupid. Alaska is a huge place and the weather is
always changing in a hurry. NO excuse for being sloppy just because
you have extra fuel, but it won't hurt either.

That Aux tank really makes a difference. I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to put a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into flapperons
for both wings.

I can hear the groans now.... huge undertaking, not something for a
novice... only an engineer with experience etc.. I will hire one!

Oh, all this makes extra weight but I'm planning on spending some
bucks for a Jabiru 3.3 and that will help reduce some weight.

Christopher

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...> wrote:

Christopher, I have 32 gallons, which gives me a 750+ mile range.
I did
endeavor to keep the tanks as large as possible, but the header
and main are
close to stock. I think the Q-200 plans did call for a smaller
header, but
I think that was solely to allow access to the engine mounting
bolts. With
a little finagling I was able to keep it at 6.5 gallons. There
are lots of
header tanks shown in the old Q-Talks. Here's what I have.

Header = 6.5

Main = 16.5

Aux = 9

Sam Hoskins Q-200



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:42 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.



Anyone here ever hear of anyone making the fuel tank taller in
their Q
to fit more fuel in (solo flying) and then extending the top of
the
canopy to make enough room for the pilot so he doesn't hit his
head on
the glass?

I haven't studied how this might affect seating yet, if the tank
is
raised whether the seating would become difficult to use the brake
and
rudder. If someone has either studied or done so, please email me
off
list.

Christopher







Steve <sham@...>
 

Christopher,
Why reinvent the wheel. Is it the speed, the handling, range,the appearance...you don't like??? I don't know how old you are but if you are planning on ten years to build it will take you twenty in real years. If you want to fly a quick good handling great looking plane, just build a Quickie and don't reinvent it. If you never plan on flying you can spend a lifetime being an inventor.

Steve Ham

PS Check the archives on Sam's post about his autopilot...

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:02 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.


When you add it up like that I can clearly see that is really plenty
of fuel, I'd be hard pressed to fly that long without a stop
somewhere but I like the idea of extra range to fly around weather,
if I do something stupid. Alaska is a huge place and the weather is
always changing in a hurry. NO excuse for being sloppy just because
you have extra fuel, but it won't hurt either.

That Aux tank really makes a difference. I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to put a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into flapperons
for both wings.

I can hear the groans now.... huge undertaking, not something for a
novice... only an engineer with experience etc.. I will hire one!

Oh, all this makes extra weight but I'm planning on spending some
bucks for a Jabiru 3.3 and that will help reduce some weight.

Christopher

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...> wrote:
>
> Christopher, I have 32 gallons, which gives me a 750+ mile range.
I did
> endeavor to keep the tanks as large as possible, but the header
and main are
> close to stock. I think the Q-200 plans did call for a smaller
header, but
> I think that was solely to allow access to the engine mounting
bolts. With
> a little finagling I was able to keep it at 6.5 gallons. There
are lots of
> header tanks shown in the old Q-Talks. Here's what I have.
>
> Header = 6.5
>
> Main = 16.5
>
> Aux = 9
>
> Sam Hoskins Q-200
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On
Behalf Of
> Christopher
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:42 AM
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.
>
>
>
> Anyone here ever hear of anyone making the fuel tank taller in
their Q
> to fit more fuel in (solo flying) and then extending the top of
the
> canopy to make enough room for the pilot so he doesn't hit his
head on
> the glass?
>
> I haven't studied how this might affect seating yet, if the tank
is
> raised whether the seating would become difficult to use the brake
and
> rudder. If someone has either studied or done so, please email me
off
> list.
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


One Sky Dog
 

In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
qdf_files@... writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to put a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project which
suceeded.

Christopher

Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@... wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
qdf_files@... writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to put
a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog




Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
 

If you have a T-tail with an elevator it will just be another Bi-wing
airplane.

Ryan

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Christopher" <qdf_files@...> wrote:
I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to put a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into flapperons
for both wings.


David J. Gall
 

What was the project?


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin headroom.

That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project
which suceeded.

Christopher

Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@... wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
qdf_files@... writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to put
a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

David,

Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate information
is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with a T-
Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer with an
elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to six feet
long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it that.

I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard, if this
can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something else if
the performance is improved by as much as 10%.

Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from someone
even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want to keep
discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I have been
referred to you for some other questions I had too.

I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of the
wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod, if it
works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-Tail,
would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more active than
the DFly group so I passed the question here about this possibility
plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not my main
thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised canopy so
I don't hit my head on the top.

Christopher

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

What was the project?


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin headroom.

That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project
which suceeded.

Christopher

Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight
Time,
qdf_files@ writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with
my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to
put
a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog


Darrell Daniels <log@...>
 

Chris,
I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took the tail off. Darrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.


David,

Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate information
is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with a T-
Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer with an
elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to six feet
long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it that.

I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard, if this
can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something else if
the performance is improved by as much as 10%.

Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from someone
even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want to keep
discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I have been
referred to you for some other questions I had too.

I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of the
wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod, if it
works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-Tail,
would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more active than
the DFly group so I passed the question here about this possibility
plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not my main
thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised canopy so
I don't hit my head on the top.

Christopher

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

What was the project?


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin headroom.

That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project
which suceeded.

Christopher

Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight
Time,
qdf_files@ writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF with
my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want to
put
a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog





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


Yahoo! Groups Links











Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and elevator
on the Tail:

Quote:

Hi Chris,

Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to a
tandem Wing airplane:

1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail to
your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have a
structural engineer direct your modification effort by calculating
how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will need for
a given size H. Stab.

2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem wing
plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about the
same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable and
approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an aft
stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you don't
need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are
installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to both
wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the
planes into STOL capable performers.

3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the
canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard dragonfly
control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail stabilizer. I
found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H. Stab.
that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal and
using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control made
a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the same
reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed
management was much better.

It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and have a
steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more
predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch buck
or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No
smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow.

4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling than
the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The normal
Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200 feels
more like an Extra 300.


5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed my
own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical engineering
degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and design the
airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model of
this design will be proven with a 1/3
scale radio controlled model.


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


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Darrell Daniels" <log@...> wrote:

Chris,
I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took the
tail off.
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.


David,

Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate
information
is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with a T-
Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer with an
elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to six
feet
long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it
that.

I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard, if
this
can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something else
if
the performance is improved by as much as 10%.

Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from
someone
even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want to
keep
discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I have
been
referred to you for some other questions I had too.

I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of the
wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod, if it
works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-
Tail,
would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more active
than
the DFly group so I passed the question here about this
possibility
plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not my
main
thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised
canopy so
I don't hit my head on the top.

Christopher

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

What was the project?


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
On Behalf Of Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin headroom.

That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project
which suceeded.

Christopher

Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight
Time,
qdf_files@ writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF
with
my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want
to
put
a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog





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


Yahoo! Groups Links











Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

Please don't take offense Chris - but I think the "flogging" was before you acknowledge you wanted to make significant changes to the Quickie design. This list isn't meant for those kind of discussions. I'm not sure the Performance list is either, but I don't belong. We are basically here to help those building the Q2/Q200 in its current form. The successful builders and fliers here try to steer the new people away from drastic design changes and that is sometimes considered "flogging". The intent is to keep everyone safe and, on a more shellfish level, keep our birds reputation from going down the toilet.

It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces out there, but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep searching until I find it for you.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.


Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and elevator
on the Tail:

Quote:

Hi Chris,

Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to a
tandem Wing airplane:

1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail to
your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have a
structural engineer direct your modification effort by calculating
how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will need for
a given size H. Stab.

2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem wing
plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about the
same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable and
approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an aft
stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you don't
need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are
installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to both
wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the
planes into STOL capable performers.

3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the
canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard dragonfly
control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail stabilizer. I
found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H. Stab.
that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal and
using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control made
a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the same
reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed
management was much better.

It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and have a
steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more
predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch buck
or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No
smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow.

4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling than
the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The normal
Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200 feels
more like an Extra 300.

5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed my
own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical engineering
degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and design the
airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model of
this design will be proven with a 1/3
scale radio controlled model.

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

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Darrell Daniels" <log@...> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took the
tail off.
> Darrell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@...>
> To: <Q-LIST@...>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.
>
>
> > David,
> >
> > Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate
information
> > is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with a T-
> > Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer with an
> > elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to six
feet
> > long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it
that.
> >
> > I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard, if
this
> > can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something else
if
> > the performance is improved by as much as 10%.
> >
> > Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from
someone
> > even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want to
keep
> > discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I have
been
> > referred to you for some other questions I had too.
> >
> > I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of the
> > wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod, if it
> > works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-
Tail,
> > would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more active
than
> > the DFly group so I passed the question here about this
possibility
> > plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not my
main
> > thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised
canopy so
> > I don't hit my head on the top.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > -- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@> wrote:
> >>
> >> What was the project?
> >>
> >>
> >> David J. Gall
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
> >> > On Behalf Of Christopher
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
> >> > To: Q-LIST@...
> >> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
> >> > cabin headroom.
> >> >
> >> > That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project
> >> > which suceeded.
> >> >
> >> > Christopher
> >> >
> >> > Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight
> > Time,
> >> > > qdf_files@ writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm pretty dedicated
> >> > > towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF
with
> > my
> >> > > project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want
to
> > put
> >> > a
> >> > > T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
> >> > flapperons
> >> > > for both wings.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> >> > >
> >> > > DOA RIP
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > One Sky Dog
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> > http://www.quickiebuilders.org
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


Dave Richardson <dave@...>
 

You're right Doug. There is a plane called an Eagle 150. If you are on
AvWeb this link should work



http://www.avweb.com/news/newacft/182746-1.html



We saw this plane as Sun 'n Fun several years ago. They had some neat
ideas on the plane including engine cooling air outlets that spill out
in the low pressure area over the top of the canard (like a Quicke)
instead of under the bottom of the fuselage. If I recall correctly,
they added several aerodynamic tricks to the wings to "let" it stall
more like a Cessna 150 than a canard aircraft. They had some triangular
shapes on the leading edge of the main wing as well as some fences
outboard. Interesting planes. Q1 pilot Nate Peck was doing demo rides
for the company when we saw it back then.



Dave



_____

From: Doug Humble [mailto:hawkidoug@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.



Please don't take offense Chris - but I think the "flogging" was before
you acknowledge you wanted to make significant changes to the Quickie
design. This list isn't meant for those kind of discussions. I'm not
sure the Performance list is either, but I don't belong. We are
basically here to help those building the Q2/Q200 in its current form.
The successful builders and fliers here try to steer the new people away
from drastic design changes and that is sometimes considered "flogging".
The intent is to keep everyone safe and, on a more shellfish level, keep
our birds reputation from going down the toilet.

It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces out
there, but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep searching
until I find it for you.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.

Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and elevator
on the Tail:

Quote:

Hi Chris,

Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to a
tandem Wing airplane:

1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail to
your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have a
structural engineer direct your modification effort by calculating
how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will need for
a given size H. Stab.

2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem wing
plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about the
same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable and
approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an aft
stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you don't
need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are
installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to both
wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the
planes into STOL capable performers.

3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the
canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard dragonfly
control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail stabilizer. I
found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H. Stab.
that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal and
using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control made
a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the same
reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed
management was much better.

It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and have a
steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more
predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch buck
or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No
smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow.

4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling than
the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The normal
Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200 feels
more like an Extra 300.

5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed my
own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical engineering
degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and design the
airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model of
this design will be proven with a 1/3
scale radio controlled model.

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

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Darrell Daniels" <log@...> wrote:

Chris,
I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took the
tail off.
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@...>
To: < Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.


David,

Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate
information
is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with a T-
Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer with an
elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to six
feet
long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it
that.

I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard, if
this
can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something else
if
the performance is improved by as much as 10%.

Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from
someone
even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want to
keep
discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I have
been
referred to you for some other questions I had too.

I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of the
wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod, if it
works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-
Tail,
would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more active
than
the DFly group so I passed the question here about this
possibility
plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not my
main
thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised
canopy so
I don't hit my head on the top.

Christopher

-- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"David J. Gall" <David@> wrote:

What was the project?


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin headroom.

That's the same thing an engineer told me on another project
which suceeded.

Christopher

Tht--- In Q-LIST@...
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> , oneskydog@ wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain Daylight
Time,
qdf_files@ writes:

I'm pretty dedicated
towards doing something different from a regular Q or DF
with
my
project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want
to
put
a
T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
flapperons
for both wings.



.
DOA RIP

Regards,

One Sky Dog





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


Yahoo! Groups Links










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


One Sky Dog
 

In a message dated 9/14/2006 8:31:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
hawkidoug@... writes:

It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces out there,
but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep searching until I find it
for you.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above _www.asignabove.www_ (http://www.asignabove.net)



Chris and Doug,

Eagle 150

_http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Eagle%201
50&distinct_entry=true_
(http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Eagle%20150&distinct_entry=true)


Regards,

Charlie aka one sky dog


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

Thanks everyone,

I've got three off list people who are interested in this same
thing, or have been discussing it with me via emails. One fellow
suggested I take this kind of thing to Q-performance but there is
much less activity there and posting it here in this group was
exactly what I needed to get the word out to find the right people,
can't argue with success. Although I did get one reply that I should
search the archives first, that was an assumption on his part, I
already did.

Chill out

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:

Please don't take offense Chris - but I think the "flogging" was
before you acknowledge you wanted to make significant changes to the
Quickie design. This list isn't meant for those kind of
discussions. I'm not sure the Performance list is either, but I
don't belong. We are basically here to help those building the
Q2/Q200 in its current form. The successful builders and fliers here
try to steer the new people away from drastic design changes and
that is sometimes considered "flogging". The intent is to keep
everyone safe and, on a more shellfish level, keep our birds
reputation from going down the toilet.

It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces
out there, but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep
searching until I find it for you.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.


Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and
elevator
on the Tail:

Quote:

Hi Chris,

Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to a
tandem Wing airplane:

1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail
to
your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have a
structural engineer direct your modification effort by
calculating
how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will need
for
a given size H. Stab.

2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem wing
plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about the
same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable and
approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an
aft
stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you
don't
need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are
installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to
both
wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the
planes into STOL capable performers.

3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the
canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard
dragonfly
control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail stabilizer.
I
found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H.
Stab.
that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal
and
using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control
made
a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the same
reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed
management was much better.

It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and
have a
steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more
predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch buck
or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No
smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow.

4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling than
the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The
normal
Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200
feels
more like an Extra 300.

5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed my
own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical engineering
degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and design
the
airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model
of
this design will be proven with a 1/3
scale radio controlled model.

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

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Darrell Daniels" <log@> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took the
tail off.
> Darrell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@>
> To: <Q-LIST@...>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin
headroom.
>
>
> > David,
> >
> > Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate
information
> > is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with
a T-
> > Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer
with an
> > elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to
six
feet
> > long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it
that.
> >
> > I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard,
if
this
> > can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something
else
if
> > the performance is improved by as much as 10%.
> >
> > Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from
someone
> > even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want
to
keep
> > discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I
have
been
> > referred to you for some other questions I had too.
> >
> > I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of
the
> > wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod,
if it
> > works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-
Tail,
> > would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more
active
than
> > the DFly group so I passed the question here about this
possibility
> > plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not
my
main
> > thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised
canopy so
> > I don't hit my head on the top.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > -- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@> wrote:
> >>
> >> What was the project?
> >>
> >>
> >> David J. Gall
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-
LIST@...]
> >> > On Behalf Of Christopher
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
> >> > To: Q-LIST@...
> >> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
> >> > cabin headroom.
> >> >
> >> > That's the same thing an engineer told me on another
project
> >> > which suceeded.
> >> >
> >> > Christopher
> >> >
> >> > Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain
Daylight
> > Time,
> >> > > qdf_files@ writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm pretty dedicated
> >> > > towards doing something different from a regular Q or
DF
with
> > my
> >> > > project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I
want
to
> > put
> >> > a
> >> > > T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
> >> > flapperons
> >> > > for both wings.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> >> > >
> >> > > DOA RIP
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > One Sky Dog
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> > http://www.quickiebuilders.org
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Christopher
The Q-Perfomance list was started especially for your kind of discussion. If you search the Q-Perfomance archives you will find that the idea of a threefoil variant of the Q is fully developed including a lot excellent of work with X-Plane simulation. Please take note of Doug's advice ..the topic does not belong on this list because it detracts from those fully committed and building the excellent Q to plan.
There are lurkers including me on the Q-Performance list but you need to update with the archives first.
Peter.

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.


Thanks everyone,

I've got three off list people who are interested in this same
thing, or have been discussing it with me via emails. One fellow
suggested I take this kind of thing to Q-performance but there is
much less activity there and posting it here in this group was
exactly what I needed to get the word out to find the right people,
can't argue with success. Although I did get one reply that I should
search the archives first, that was an assumption on his part, I
already did.

Chill out

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:
>
> Please don't take offense Chris - but I think the "flogging" was
before you acknowledge you wanted to make significant changes to the
Quickie design. This list isn't meant for those kind of
discussions. I'm not sure the Performance list is either, but I
don't belong. We are basically here to help those building the
Q2/Q200 in its current form. The successful builders and fliers here
try to steer the new people away from drastic design changes and
that is sometimes considered "flogging". The intent is to keep
everyone safe and, on a more shellfish level, keep our birds
reputation from going down the toilet.
>
> It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces
out there, but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep
searching until I find it for you.
>
> Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
> A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
> Omaha NE
> N25974
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:36 AM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.
>
>
> Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and
elevator
> on the Tail:
>
> Quote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to a
> tandem Wing airplane:
>
> 1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail
to
> your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have a
> structural engineer direct your modification effort by
calculating
> how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will need
for
> a given size H. Stab.
>
> 2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem wing
> plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about the
> same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable and
> approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an
aft
> stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you
don't
> need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are
> installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to
both
> wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the
> planes into STOL capable performers.
>
> 3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the
> canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard
dragonfly
> control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail stabilizer.
I
> found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H.
Stab.
> that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal
and
> using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control
made
> a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the same
> reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed
> management was much better.
>
> It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and
have a
> steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more
> predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch buck
> or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No
> smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow.
>
> 4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling than
> the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The
normal
> Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200
feels
> more like an Extra 300.
>
> 5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed my
> own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical engineering
> degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and design
the
> airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model
of
> this design will be proven with a 1/3
> scale radio controlled model.
>
> ------------------
>
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "Darrell Daniels" <log@> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> > I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took the
> tail off.
> > Darrell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@>
> > To: <Q-LIST@...>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin
> headroom.
> >
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate
> information
> > > is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with
a T-
> > > Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer
with an
> > > elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to
six
> feet
> > > long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it
> that.
> > >
> > > I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the canard,
if
> this
> > > can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something
else
> if
> > > the performance is improved by as much as 10%.
> > >
> > > Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about from
> someone
> > > even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want
to
> keep
> > > discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I
have
> been
> > > referred to you for some other questions I had too.
> > >
> > > I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length of
the
> > > wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this mod,
if it
> > > works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the T-
> Tail,
> > > would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more
active
> than
> > > the DFly group so I passed the question here about this
> possibility
> > > plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not
my
> main
> > > thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised
> canopy so
> > > I don't hit my head on the top.
> > >
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > -- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What was the project?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> David J. Gall
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-
LIST@...]
> > >> > On Behalf Of Christopher
> > >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
> > >> > To: Q-LIST@...
> > >> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
> > >> > cabin headroom.
> > >> >
> > >> > That's the same thing an engineer told me on another
project
> > >> > which suceeded.
> > >> >
> > >> > Christopher
> > >> >
> > >> > Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain
Daylight
> > > Time,
> > >> > > qdf_files@ writes:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm pretty dedicated
> > >> > > towards doing something different from a regular Q or
DF
> with
> > > my
> > >> > > project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I
want
> to
> > > put
> > >> > a
> > >> > > T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look into
> > >> > flapperons
> > >> > > for both wings.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > DOA RIP
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > One Sky Dog
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> > > http://www.quickiebuilders.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

Yes, that is where I found out about the Tri-foil. Lets get back to
where this started, simply, I asked a question if anyone here had
increased the size of their overhead by extending the hieght on the
cabin and in that same post I made a remark that I wanted to do a T-
tail and then others picked up on that remark and the posts started
to go in that direction. If you all don't want me to post about
something outside of the envelope of this forum don't respond to
that portion of my post.

I had taken that information out of Q-Performance and made a file
at: http://imageevent.com/qdf_files/quickiefiles

So many assumptions being made here... just ignore this post if you
don't like what I have to say and it will quickly roll down the list
and disappear. This thread had migrated into this direction by the
comments from others... if too far off topic for this group I
sincerely applogize.

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

Christopher
The Q-Perfomance list was started especially for your kind of
discussion. If you search the Q-Perfomance archives you will find
that the idea of a threefoil variant of the Q is fully developed
including a lot excellent of work with X-Plane simulation. Please
take note of Doug's advice ..the topic does not belong on this list
because it detracts from those fully committed and building the
excellent Q to plan.
There are lurkers including me on the Q-Performance list but you
need to update with the archives first.
Peter.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin
headroom.


Thanks everyone,

I've got three off list people who are interested in this same
thing, or have been discussing it with me via emails. One fellow
suggested I take this kind of thing to Q-performance but there
is
much less activity there and posting it here in this group was
exactly what I needed to get the word out to find the right
people,
can't argue with success. Although I did get one reply that I
should
search the archives first, that was an assumption on his part, I
already did.

Chill out

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@> wrote:
>
> Please don't take offense Chris - but I think the "flogging"
was
before you acknowledge you wanted to make significant changes to
the
Quickie design. This list isn't meant for those kind of
discussions. I'm not sure the Performance list is either, but I
don't belong. We are basically here to help those building the
Q2/Q200 in its current form. The successful builders and fliers
here
try to steer the new people away from drastic design changes and
that is sometimes considered "flogging". The intent is to keep
everyone safe and, on a more shellfish level, keep our birds
reputation from going down the toilet.
>
> It seems to me that there is a design with three flying
surfaces
out there, but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep
searching until I find it for you.
>
> Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
> A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
> Omaha NE
> N25974
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher
> To: Q-LIST@...
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:36 AM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin
headroom.
>
>
> Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and
elevator
> on the Tail:
>
> Quote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to
a
> tandem Wing airplane:
>
> 1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail
to
> your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have
a
> structural engineer direct your modification effort by
calculating
> how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will
need
for
> a given size H. Stab.
>
> 2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem
wing
> plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about
the
> same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable
and
> approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an
aft
> stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you
don't
> need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are
> installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to
both
> wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the
> planes into STOL capable performers.
>
> 3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the
> canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard
dragonfly
> control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail
stabilizer.
I
> found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H.
Stab.
> that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal
and
> using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control
made
> a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the
same
> reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed
> management was much better.
>
> It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and
have a
> steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more
> predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch
buck
> or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No
> smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow.
>
> 4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling
than
> the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The
normal
> Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200
feels
> more like an Extra 300.
>
> 5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed
my
> own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical
engineering
> degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and
design
the
> airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model
of
> this design will be proven with a 1/3
> scale radio controlled model.
>
> ------------------
>
> --- In Q-LIST@..., "Darrell Daniels" <log@> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> > I was thinking one goy on the group had a T Tail and took
the
> tail off.
> > Darrell
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christopher" <qdf_files@>
> > To: <Q-LIST@...>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:29 AM
> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher
cabin
> headroom.
> >
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > Thanks for responding... I, if I am being told accurate
> information
> > > is that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up
with
a T-
> > > Tail allowing slower approach speeds if the a stabilizer
with an
> > > elevator is added to the top of the tail which is five to
six
> feet
> > > long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call
it
> that.
> > >
> > > I wanted to look into deleting the elevators off the
canard,
if
> this
> > > can be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes
something
else
> if
> > > the performance is improved by as much as 10%.
> > >
> > > Due to the public floggings of opinion which come about
from
> someone
> > > even suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want
to
> keep
> > > discussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I
have
> been
> > > referred to you for some other questions I had too.
> > >
> > > I have a DF, but the way I see it, except for the length
of
the
> > > wings they are the same airplane, essentially and this
mod,
if it
> > > works as well as claimed by someone who did a study on the
T-
> Tail,
> > > would apply to either aircraft. This group is much more
active
> than
> > > the DFly group so I passed the question here about this
> possibility
> > > plus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not
my
> main
> > > thrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised
> canopy so
> > > I don't hit my head on the top.
> > >
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > -- In Q-LIST@..., "David J. Gall" <David@>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What was the project?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> David J. Gall
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-
LIST@...]
> > >> > On Behalf Of Christopher
> > >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:44 PM
> > >> > To: Q-LIST@...
> > >> > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Larger fuel tank under seat +
higher
> > >> > cabin headroom.
> > >> >
> > >> > That's the same thing an engineer told me on another
project
> > >> > which suceeded.
> > >> >
> > >> > Christopher
> > >> >
> > >> > Tht--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In a message dated 9/13/2006 8:12:52 AM Mountain
Daylight
> > > Time,
> > >> > > qdf_files@ writes:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm pretty dedicated
> > >> > > towards doing something different from a regular Q or
DF
> with
> > > my
> > >> > > project even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I
want
> to
> > > put
> > >> > a
> > >> > > T-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look
into
> > >> > flapperons
> > >> > > for both wings.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > DOA RIP
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > One Sky Dog
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> > > http://www.quickiebuilders.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







RICHARD GLIMES
 

IT WAS CALLED THE AMOSOL RACER.,A QUICKIE CLONE WITH AN 0-320 ENGINE WHICH CRASHED AT RENO,NV AT 200 MPH. AND THE PILOT CLIMBED OUT OF THE WRECKAGE UNHURT AND WALKED AWAY UNDER HIS OWN POWER WITHOUT HELP. IT HAD A" T "TAIL ,SO THE IDEA WAS ALREADY PUT INTO THE AIR BY THE RUTAN PEOPLE.

oneskydog@... wrote:

In a message dated 9/14/2006 8:31:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
hawkidoug@... writes:

It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces out there,
but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep searching until I find it
for you.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above _www.asignabove.www_ (http://www.asignabove.net)

Chris and Doug,

Eagle 150

_http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Eagle%201
50&distinct_entry=true_
(http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Eagle%20150&distinct_entry=true)


Regards,

Charlie aka one sky dog


Christopher <qdf_files@...>
 

Email me off list on this if you are willing to discuss what went
wrong etc... I have been told in private email that I can't ask
questions about anything here which isn't standard build.

--- In Q-LIST@..., RICHARD GLIMES <lansair@...> wrote:

IT WAS CALLED THE AMOSOL RACER.,A QUICKIE CLONE WITH AN 0-320
ENGINE WHICH CRASHED AT RENO,NV AT 200 MPH. AND THE PILOT CLIMBED
OUT OF THE WRECKAGE UNHURT AND WALKED AWAY UNDER HIS OWN POWER
WITHOUT HELP. IT HAD A" T "TAIL ,SO THE IDEA WAS ALREADY PUT INTO
THE AIR BY THE RUTAN PEOPLE.

oneskydog@... wrote:
In a message dated 9/14/2006 8:31:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
hawkidoug@... writes:

It seems to me that there is a design with three flying surfaces
out there,
but I can not remember what it is called. I'll keep searching
until I find it
for you.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above _www.asignabove.www_ (http://www.asignabove.net)

Chris and Doug,

Eagle 150

_http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?
aircraft_genericsearch=Eagle%201
50&distinct_entry=true_
(http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?
aircraft_genericsearch=Eagle%20150&distinct_entry=true)


Regards,

Charlie aka one sky dog

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






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