Lay up sched?


ykrauq <fifty101fifty@...>
 

Any one know the lay-up schedule for the Ls1 spar? Not just to join
the two halves but of the spar it self?


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Here is the lamination schedule for the LS 1 spar, however you really
really REALLY need the full directions -- mine was done wrong by the first
builder (did not allow 3.5 deg sweep in jigging and canard has to be cut
out, re-jigged, spar cap redone!) So get a copy of the instructions and
study carefully before you start!

The LS1 spar gets
3 ply of BID at 45 deg extending 6" outside the joint (12" total)
then spars caps of UNI:
Bottom: 5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"
Top: 5 ply 20" x 3.5"
5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"

Mike Perry

At 05:36 PM 10/4/2006 +0000, you wrote:

Any one know the lay-up schedule for the Ls1 spar? Not just to join
the two halves but of the spar it self?


Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
 

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1 but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was never a set of directions to make spars as they were always pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*. Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@charter.net> wrote:
Here is the lamination schedule for the LS 1 spar, however you really
really REALLY need the full directions -- mine was done wrong by the first
builder (did not allow 3.5 deg sweep in jigging and canard has to be cut
out, re-jigged, spar cap redone!) So get a copy of the instructions and
study carefully before you start!

The LS1 spar gets
3 ply of BID at 45 deg extending 6" outside the joint (12" total)
then spars caps of UNI:
Bottom: 5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"
Top: 5 ply 20" x 3.5"
5 ply 18" x 3.5"
5 ply 16" " x 3.5"
5 ply 14" x 3.5"
5 ply 12" x 3.5"
5 ply 10" x 3.5"

Mike Perry

At 05:36 PM 10/4/2006 +0000, you wrote:

Any one know the lay-up schedule for the Ls1 spar? Not just to join
the two halves but of the spar it self?







---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.


David J. Gall
 

Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSource.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

I might possibly have access to the Q-200 appendix sheets/templates. Let me
check in the next couple of days.

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason


Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
 

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

>BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of people having to cut off there canard because it didn’t have the correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there canard apart because it didn’t have the proper sweep in it, or cut of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work? It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25” shift of the canard tips moving the CG .5” as well as changing the weight distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger design). Doesn’t look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10) discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change as much as 2-3”. Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout, etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack of “fallowing the plans,” but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@Gall.com> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSource.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason





---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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


Jim Patillo
 

Jason,

Why in the world are you trying to make building this airplane more
difficult or complicated than it has to be. Do you currently own a Q
kit or plane you're rebuilding? Are you starting from scratch? Give
us a little insight. Remember we've only been at this 25 years.

I bought my plans/kit in 1981 like a lot of others, built it per
plan and added the enhancing mods package now commonly known as
the "Jim/Bob Six Pack" (to tame the handling characteristics). Guess
what, IT FLEW FINE! I didn't have do any rework because I
misinterpeted QAC's simplistic plans or didn't understand them. BTW,
this was all done without any internet or support from anyone as the
factory was defunct and dealers weren't that supportive. I didn't
even know Farnam was building his plane 15 miles away. Today you
simply a keystroke away from an answer.

I had no prior building experience and didn't know anything about
glass layups. If you think you're as much an aeronautical engineer
as Bert Rutan or Tom Jewett then by all means create something new,
just don't try calling it a Quickie. If you are serious about this
plane, then get on with it. Help is out here but you won't get any
help from this group comming off as an authority on something you
haven't done. There are already to many of us that have!

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type.


--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
wrote:

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out
your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

>BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need
to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans
you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of
people having to cut off there canard because it didn't have the
correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there
canard apart because it didn't have the proper sweep in it, or cut
of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is
every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work?
It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to
fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have
to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled
and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective
this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25" shift of the
canard tips moving the CG .5" as well as changing the weight
distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger
design). Doesn't look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10)
discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change
as much as 2-3". Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued
with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout,
etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack
of "fallowing the plans," but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft
during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of
foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages
that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include
this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text
entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix
sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three
page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard."
Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters,
but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available
at
http://QuickieSource.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets
for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them
to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have
all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon
McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and
even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the
same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars,
but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have)
and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to
know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason





---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

David,

I have an original copy of the LS1 plans headed "Construction of LS(1) 0417
MOD CANARD, 2 pages of description and pics commencing with "Jigging the
canard" plus 10 pages of drawings by Larry Lombard dated in 1983.. If this
is what you need I could send you a copy if you don't find one closer to
home. Or maybe scan them and send to you. (There are no airfoils included
just hand sketches) There is also a release about mods to the firewall to
beef it up for the 0-200 engine.

Cheers,

Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 5:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard." Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters, but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars, but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have) and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a true
representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down his building time,
but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?




Jason,

Why in the world are you trying to make building this airplane more
difficult or complicated than it has to be. Do you currently own a Q
kit or plane you're rebuilding? Are you starting from scratch? Give
us a little insight. Remember we've only been at this 25 years.

I bought my plans/kit in 1981 like a lot of others, built it per
plan and added the enhancing mods package now commonly known as
the "Jim/Bob Six Pack" (to tame the handling characteristics). Guess
what, IT FLEW FINE! I didn't have do any rework because I
misinterpeted QAC's simplistic plans or didn't understand them. BTW,
this was all done without any internet or support from anyone as the
factory was defunct and dealers weren't that supportive. I didn't
even know Farnam was building his plane 15 miles away. Today you
simply a keystroke away from an answer.

I had no prior building experience and didn't know anything about
glass layups. If you think you're as much an aeronautical engineer
as Bert Rutan or Tom Jewett then by all means create something new,
just don't try calling it a Quickie. If you are serious about this
plane, then get on with it. Help is out here but you won't get any
help from this group comming off as an authority on something you
haven't done. There are already to many of us that have!

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, Jason
Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
wrote:

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out
your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need
to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans
you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of
people having to cut off there canard because it didn't have the
correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there
canard apart because it didn't have the proper sweep in it, or cut
of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is
every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work?
It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to
fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have
to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled
and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective
this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25" shift of the
canard tips moving the CG .5" as well as changing the weight
distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger
design). Doesn't look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10)
discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change
as much as 2-3". Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued
with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout,
etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack
of "fallowing the plans," but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft
during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of
foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages
that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include
this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text
entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix
sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three
page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard."
Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters,
but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available
at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets
for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them
to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have
all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon
McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and
even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the
same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars,
but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have)
and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to
know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason





---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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


Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
 

Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry to offend you.

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@mchsi.com> wrote: Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a true
representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down his building time,
but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?

Jason,

Why in the world are you trying to make building this airplane more
difficult or complicated than it has to be. Do you currently own a Q
kit or plane you're rebuilding? Are you starting from scratch? Give
us a little insight. Remember we've only been at this 25 years.

I bought my plans/kit in 1981 like a lot of others, built it per
plan and added the enhancing mods package now commonly known as
the "Jim/Bob Six Pack" (to tame the handling characteristics). Guess
what, IT FLEW FINE! I didn't have do any rework because I
misinterpeted QAC's simplistic plans or didn't understand them. BTW,
this was all done without any internet or support from anyone as the
factory was defunct and dealers weren't that supportive. I didn't
even know Farnam was building his plane 15 miles away. Today you
simply a keystroke away from an answer.

I had no prior building experience and didn't know anything about
glass layups. If you think you're as much an aeronautical engineer
as Bert Rutan or Tom Jewett then by all means create something new,
just don't try calling it a Quickie. If you are serious about this
plane, then get on with it. Help is out here but you won't get any
help from this group comming off as an authority on something you
haven't done. There are already to many of us that have!

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, Jason
Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
wrote:

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out
your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need
to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans
you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of
people having to cut off there canard because it didn't have the
correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there
canard apart because it didn't have the proper sweep in it, or cut
of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is
every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work?
It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to
fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have
to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled
and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective
this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25" shift of the
canard tips moving the CG .5" as well as changing the weight
distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger
design). Doesn't look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10)
discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change
as much as 2-3". Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued
with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout,
etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack
of "fallowing the plans," but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft
during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of
foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@...> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages
that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include
this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text
entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix
sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three
page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard."
Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters,
but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available
at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets
for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them
to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have
all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon
McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and
even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the
same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars,
but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have)
and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to
know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason





---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.









---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

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


David J. Gall
 

Jason,

Due to dihedral, the measurement of sweep is not as straightforward as it
may at first appear. The plans don't say anything about sweep, they only say
to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line. If
you do this, you then end up building the canard with the correct sweep.
What is the true sweep of the canard? NOBODY knows. Nobody CARES ('cept you
and me). What they do care about is that the canard was built "correctly."
If you look at the three-view of the airplane you will see that the trailing
edge of the canard is a straight line from tip to tip. THAT is the real
sweep of the canard, and I'd bet $100 that the designers themselves didn't
know what the true sweep of the quarter chord line of the canard is....

Now, two guys going out to the hangar to measure the sweep on Sam Hoskins'
plane (for example) will probably come back with two different measurements,
partly because one might forget to level the plane first and partly because
they might pick different places to take their measurements. For instance,
do you measure the sweep from the centerline or from the wing root, and do
you extrapolate the leading edge sweep into the fuselage cavity or just
assume a constant chord for that portion of the wing embedded in the
fuselage. These and other considerations make it VERY difficult to assign a
particular number to the sweep of such a flying surface and to be able to
definitively defend that number as THE correct number against all other
contenders.

Better to just eschew such "hard numbers" as too hard to bother with. The
"hard numbers" you really want are those that will allow you to BUILD the
plane. The plans' scheme of level lines and reference marks allow that
without all the hullabaloo about imaginary engineering references. And if
you're worried about modeling the thing for X-Plane, keep in mind that the
great analog computer in the sky is a much better wind tunnel than any
computer will ever be.


David J. Gall
BSAE TBP
P.S. The answer to your question is to believe the plans. The guy with the
mill and thousands of hours in type isn't "wrong," just irrelevant. Like the
trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?

Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point
well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing
sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in
type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry
to offend you.

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@mchsi.com> wrote: Hold on
there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a
true representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down
his building time, but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

FWIW:
Dave is right, most flying planes were just "built to plans" and
flew OK -- actually, most flew great, it was the landing . . . -- anyway,
most flew great based on the plans .
However, MY plans, "Construction of LS(1) 0417 Mod Canard" (page
1) clearly state: "Trial fit both spars at trailing edges . . . Some custom
fitting will likely be required @ B.L. '0-0'. Note, 3.5 deg + sweep aft of
spars at outboard tips." (emphasis added)
Note well: this is the sweep of the SPAR in the jigging templates,
not the sweep of the canard, but that is the sweep of 3.5 deg. occasionally
noted in this discussion.
Also: I am more aware of this than anyone as the ¿Proud? owner of
a canard built with the spar straight :-(

Mike Perry

At 09:50 PM 10/5/2006 -0700, Dave Gall wrote:

Jason,

Due to dihedral, the measurement of sweep is not as straightforward as it
may at first appear. The plans don't say anything about sweep, they only say
to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line. If
you do this, you then end up building the canard with the correct sweep.
What is the true sweep of the canard? NOBODY knows. Nobody CARES ('cept you
and me). What they do care about is that the canard was built "correctly."
If you look at the three-view of the airplane you will see that the trailing
edge of the canard is a straight line from tip to tip. THAT is the real
sweep of the canard, and I'd bet $100 that the designers themselves didn't
know what the true sweep of the quarter chord line of the canard is....

Now, two guys going out to the hangar to measure the sweep on Sam Hoskins'
plane (for example) will probably come back with two different measurements,
partly because one might forget to level the plane first and partly because
they might pick different places to take their measurements. For instance,
do you measure the sweep from the centerline or from the wing root, and do
you extrapolate the leading edge sweep into the fuselage cavity or just
assume a constant chord for that portion of the wing embedded in the
fuselage. These and other considerations make it VERY difficult to assign a
particular number to the sweep of such a flying surface and to be able to
definitively defend that number as THE correct number against all other
contenders.

Better to just eschew such "hard numbers" as too hard to bother with. The
"hard numbers" you really want are those that will allow you to BUILD the
plane. The plans' scheme of level lines and reference marks allow that
without all the hullabaloo about imaginary engineering references. And if
you're worried about modeling the thing for X-Plane, keep in mind that the
great analog computer in the sky is a much better wind tunnel than any
computer will ever be.

David J. Gall
BSAE TBP
P.S. The answer to your question is to believe the plans. The guy with the
mill and thousands of hours in type isn't "wrong," just irrelevant. Like the
trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?

Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point
well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing
sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in
type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry
to offend you.

Sam Hoskins <<mailto:shoskins%40mchsi.com>shoskins@mchsi.com> wrote:
Hold on
there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a
true representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down
his building time, but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

<http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam


David J. Gall
 

Peter,

From your description this sounds similar to but different from what I have.
Could you send me a quick low-resolution black-and-white scan of these
documents so that I can compare with what I have? If different, I'd then ask
you for better scans....

Thank you,


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Peter Harris
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

David,

I have an original copy of the LS1 plans headed "Construction
of LS(1) 0417 MOD CANARD, 2 pages of description and pics
commencing with "Jigging the canard" plus 10 pages of
drawings by Larry Lombard dated in 1983.. If this is what you
need I could send you a copy if you don't find one closer to
home. Or maybe scan them and send to you. (There are no
airfoils included just hand sketches) There is also a release
about mods to the firewall to beef it up for the 0-200 engine.

Cheers,

Peter


Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

I sure like the way you explain things David! Glad you're out there.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?


Jason,

Due to dihedral, the measurement of sweep is not as straightforward as it
may at first appear. The plans don't say anything about sweep, they only say
to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line. If
you do this, you then end up building the canard with the correct sweep.
What is the true sweep of the canard? NOBODY knows. Nobody CARES ('cept you
and me). What they do care about is that the canard was built "correctly."
If you look at the three-view of the airplane you will see that the trailing
edge of the canard is a straight line from tip to tip. THAT is the real
sweep of the canard, and I'd bet $100 that the designers themselves didn't
know what the true sweep of the quarter chord line of the canard is....

Now, two guys going out to the hangar to measure the sweep on Sam Hoskins'
plane (for example) will probably come back with two different measurements,
partly because one might forget to level the plane first and partly because
they might pick different places to take their measurements. For instance,
do you measure the sweep from the centerline or from the wing root, and do
you extrapolate the leading edge sweep into the fuselage cavity or just
assume a constant chord for that portion of the wing embedded in the
fuselage. These and other considerations make it VERY difficult to assign a
particular number to the sweep of such a flying surface and to be able to
definitively defend that number as THE correct number against all other
contenders.

Better to just eschew such "hard numbers" as too hard to bother with. The
"hard numbers" you really want are those that will allow you to BUILD the
plane. The plans' scheme of level lines and reference marks allow that
without all the hullabaloo about imaginary engineering references. And if
you're worried about modeling the thing for X-Plane, keep in mind that the
great analog computer in the sky is a much better wind tunnel than any
computer will ever be.

David J. Gall
BSAE TBP
P.S. The answer to your question is to believe the plans. The guy with the
mill and thousands of hours in type isn't "wrong," just irrelevant. Like the
trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?
>
> Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point
> well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing
> sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in
> type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry
> to offend you.
>
> Sam Hoskins <shoskins@mchsi.com> wrote: Hold on
> there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
> person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a
> true representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down
> his building time, but someone may benefit in the long run.
>
> Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?
>
> http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html
>
> Sam


Jim Patillo
 

Sam,

I'm sure Jason Muscat is quite talanted and a very capable fella. What
he's already done with his Q website is helpful. That's wasn't my
point. Jason any contribution you make is welcomed and greatly
appreciated.

Jim P.



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

Hold on there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a
multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a true
representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down his building
time,
but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of
Jim Patillo
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?




Jason,

Why in the world are you trying to make building this airplane more
difficult or complicated than it has to be. Do you currently own a Q
kit or plane you're rebuilding? Are you starting from scratch? Give
us a little insight. Remember we've only been at this 25 years.

I bought my plans/kit in 1981 like a lot of others, built it per
plan and added the enhancing mods package now commonly known as
the "Jim/Bob Six Pack" (to tame the handling characteristics). Guess
what, IT FLEW FINE! I didn't have do any rework because I
misinterpeted QAC's simplistic plans or didn't understand them. BTW,
this was all done without any internet or support from anyone as the
factory was defunct and dealers weren't that supportive. I didn't
even know Farnam was building his plane 15 miles away. Today you
simply a keystroke away from an answer.

I had no prior building experience and didn't know anything about
glass layups. If you think you're as much an aeronautical engineer
as Bert Rutan or Tom Jewett then by all means create something new,
just don't try calling it a Quickie. If you are serious about this
plane, then get on with it. Help is out here but you won't get any
help from this group comming off as an authority on something you
haven't done. There are already to many of us that have!

Regards,
Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, Jason
Muscat <fifty101fifty@>
wrote:

Good to know and thank you for all the info. I will check out
your CD (it will be the 5th cd on the q i have purchased now)

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need
to know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!>
Every one says this "if you follow the instructions and plans
you don't need ...." however, i have heard over a dozen instances of
people having to cut off there canard because it didn't have the
correct incidence in it (a tinny 2* diff) or they had to tear there
canard apart because it didn't have the proper sweep in it, or cut
of the wing because the incidence stall characteristics poor. Why is
every one so reluctant to hard numbers so they can Q&A there work?
It is obvious that the plans have holes, and are very hard to
fallow. And if one were use them as a means of Q&A, one would have
to rejig all his assemblies the way they were originally assembled
and then re measure. Ridicules. Just to put it in perspective
this .3* diff in spar discrepancy can case a 1.25" shift of the
canard tips moving the CG .5" as well as changing the weight
distribution on the gear (detrimental if you have the t-dragger
design). Doesn't look like much but if this is the norm (and i am
seeing it is) and there are as little as 3 (normally 5-10)
discrepancies like this, the CG (or any other parameter) can change
as much as 2-3". Look at the history of home builds, it is plagued
with builders not putting in the correct sweep, incidence, washout,
etc and I would pose that its not just from the builders lack
of "fallowing the plans," but it is very hard to Q&A an aircraft
during assembly if you have no useful measurements just a pile of
foam blanks and some profiles.

Thanx again
Jason



"David J. Gall" <David@> wrote: Jason,

You do not have the complete plans. What you have is three pages
that start
with the words "Dear Builder." The complete LS(1) plans include
this
document, but are also composed of seven more pages of text
entitled
"Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Canard," plus four(?) appendix
sheets. The
Quickie (not Q2/200) LS(1) plans are the same, plus another three
page
document entitled "Construction of LS(1)-0417MOD Quickie Canard."
Note
inclusion of the word "Quickie."

I publish a CD with all of the Q2/200 plans and QAC newsletters,
but without
any of the full-size templates (appendix sheets). It is available
at
http://QuickieSourc <http://QuickieSource.com.> e.com.

(If I could get my hands on ORIGINALS of the LS(1) appendix sheets
for both
the Q200 and the Quickie I'd happily digitize them and return them
to their
owner, then publish them in .pdf and .dxf format. I already have
all the
other appendix sheets but have not included them on the CD's. Leon
McAtee
has done an excellent job of recreating the Quickie appendices and
even
correcting some errors along the way, but no one has yet done the
same for
the Q2/200.)

No one has the original spar layup schedules for the carbon spars,
but Peter
Harris reverse engineered them (with the help of John ten Have)
and will
gladly sell you a new set.

BTW, if you follow the instructions and plans you don't need to
know whether
the sweep is 3.5" or 3.79"!

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

Mike

Thanx for the info. I do have the directions for the LS1
but i am under the assumption they are not the final draft as
they have stated in the first paragraph "The four large
appendix sheets are the final drawings. The few instructions
included here are not." And i am also assuming that there was
never a set of directions to make spars as they were always
pre fabricated in two pieces in the kit and joined by the
builder. Are both these assumptions correct? If so does any
one have the full ls1 canard directions? Does any one have
the spar lay-up directions if it was ever instructed for the
builder to make the spars him self? And 3.5* sweep, i have
checked my math 4 times and im showing a sweep of 3.79*.
Close enough I guess. My hats off to you guys, i have no idea
how you make these planes from the plans.

much appreciated
Jason





---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.








Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

David,

I will get it scanned. Correction.. there are 8 pages of sketches and 2
pages of text.



Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 4:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Peter,

From your description this sounds similar to but different from what I have.
Could you send me a quick low-resolution black-and-white scan of these
documents so that I can compare with what I have? If different, I'd then ask
you for better scans....

Thank you,

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Peter Harris
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

David,

I have an original copy of the LS1 plans headed "Construction
of LS(1) 0417 MOD CANARD, 2 pages of description and pics
commencing with "Jigging the canard" plus 10 pages of
drawings by Larry Lombard dated in 1983.. If this is what you
need I could send you a copy if you don't find one closer to
home. Or maybe scan them and send to you. (There are no
airfoils included just hand sketches) There is also a release
about mods to the firewall to beef it up for the 0-200 engine.

Cheers,

Peter


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Mike my plans say that also but we set up the joined spars with the upper
spar cap glassed in, the spars were attached temporarily by glass to the
jigging templates. Then the foam core sections were offered up to the spar
trial fit at first dry. It is important to know that the spars will be a
tight fit in the cores and care is needed to use WET micro slurry and be
sure to bed each core fully, otherwise the spar will be exposed when you
sand off the excess core joggle then spoiling the airfoil shape. My original
canard suffered this problem which was corrected by additional filler.

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Mike Perry
Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 3:31 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?



FWIW:
Dave is right, most flying planes were just "built to plans" and
flew OK -- actually, most flew great, it was the landing . . . -- anyway,
most flew great based on the plans .
However, MY plans, "Construction of LS(1) 0417 Mod Canard" (page
1) clearly state: "Trial fit both spars at trailing edges . . . Some custom
fitting will likely be required @ B.L. '0-0'. Note, 3.5 deg + sweep aft of
spars at outboard tips." (emphasis added)
Note well: this is the sweep of the SPAR in the jigging templates,
not the sweep of the canard, but that is the sweep of 3.5 deg. occasionally
noted in this discussion.
Also: I am more aware of this than anyone as the ¿Proud? owner of
a canard built with the spar straight :-(

Mike Perry

At 09:50 PM 10/5/2006 -0700, Dave Gall wrote:

Jason,

Due to dihedral, the measurement of sweep is not as straightforward as it
may at first appear. The plans don't say anything about sweep, they only
say
to put some reference marks on the jigging templates in a straight line..
If
you do this, you then end up building the canard with the correct sweep..
What is the true sweep of the canard? NOBODY knows. Nobody CARES ('cept you
and me). What they do care about is that the canard was built "correctly."
If you look at the three-view of the airplane you will see that the
trailing
edge of the canard is a straight line from tip to tip. THAT is the real
sweep of the canard, and I'd bet $100 that the designers themselves didn't
know what the true sweep of the quarter chord line of the canard is....

Now, two guys going out to the hangar to measure the sweep on Sam Hoskins'
plane (for example) will probably come back with two different
measurements,
partly because one might forget to level the plane first and partly because
they might pick different places to take their measurements. For instance,
do you measure the sweep from the centerline or from the wing root, and do
you extrapolate the leading edge sweep into the fuselage cavity or just
assume a constant chord for that portion of the wing embedded in the
fuselage. These and other considerations make it VERY difficult to assign a
particular number to the sweep of such a flying surface and to be able to
definitively defend that number as THE correct number against all other
contenders.

Better to just eschew such "hard numbers" as too hard to bother with. The
"hard numbers" you really want are those that will allow you to BUILD the
plane. The plans' scheme of level lines and reference marks allow that
without all the hullabaloo about imaginary engineering references. And if
you're worried about modeling the thing for X-Plane, keep in mind that the
great analog computer in the sky is a much better wind tunnel than any
computer will ever be.

David J. Gall
BSAE TBP
P.S. The answer to your question is to believe the plans. The guy with the
mill and thousands of hours in type isn't "wrong," just irrelevant. Like
the
trig functions on your calculator are irrelevant to building one of these
planes.

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Jason Muscat
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:17 PM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Lay up sched?

Thanx Sam. I did read your site on the auto pilot and point
well taken. But with that, who do i believe with the wing
sweep then, the plans or the guy that has a mill + hours in
type that says something different? Take it easy guys, sorry
to offend you.

Sam Hoskins <<mailto:shoskins%40mchsi.com>shoskins@mchsi.
<mailto:shoskins%40mchsi.com> com> wrote:
Hold on
there, Jimbo. I have a feeling that Jason may be a multitalented
person. I think it may be great if someone were to create a
true representation of the plane. Sure, it is slowing down
his building time, but someone may benefit in the long run.

Having said that, I wonder if he read the story about my autopilot?

<http://samhoskins.
<http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>
blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>http://samhoskins.
<http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html>
blogspot.com/2006_01_01_samhoskins_archive.html

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





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


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

David

If I can have your email address I will send you the LS(1) construction
details in a Zip file. You can get me on peterjfharris@bigpond.com.



Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 4:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Peter,

From your description this sounds similar to but different from what I have.
Could you send me a quick low-resolution black-and-white scan of these
documents so that I can compare with what I have? If different, I'd then ask
you for better scans....

Thank you,

David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com]
On Behalf Of Peter Harris
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?

David,

I have an original copy of the LS1 plans headed "Construction
of LS(1) 0417 MOD CANARD, 2 pages of description and pics
commencing with "Jigging the canard" plus 10 pages of
drawings by Larry Lombard dated in 1983.. If this is what you
need I could send you a copy if you don't find one closer to
home. Or maybe scan them and send to you. (There are no
airfoils included just hand sketches) There is also a release
about mods to the firewall to beef it up for the 0-200 engine.

Cheers,

Peter


David J. Gall
 

Peter,

Email: David@QuickieSource.com


David J. Gall


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

David,

Did you receive and open the LS(1) zip file ?



Peter





_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David J. Gall
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2006 4:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Lay up sched?



Peter,

Email: David@QuickieSource <mailto:David%40QuickieSource.com> .com

David J. Gall