Date
1 - 20 of 38
Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial)
Fellas,
I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system). Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the problem! Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs. Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many things going on to be doing this additional "dance". This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why? To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT! What? I do not understand this. This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own, isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more! These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who don't want to get hurt. Regards, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line. Bingo! There's a reason. |
|
Dave Richardson <dave@...>
You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a better
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds like Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull lever. Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and realizes you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane to show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming up with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to install the proven six pack. I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to first flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked pretty hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner reflexor in a fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result and that is what really counts. To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and $'s on something that has already been solved and proven to be successful? Do what works and go fly your plane. Dave Richardson Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs. -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Patillo Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM To: Q-LIST@... Cc: Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) |
|
Dave,
I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers? Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it. I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't run across any three handed pilots lately. If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights. He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly! I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame? Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't care to express it. Regards, JP --- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@...> wrote: better idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It soundslike Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pulllever. Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need threerealizes you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your planeto show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his isup with his solutions and implementing them than it would take toinstall the proven six pack.first flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather thanpretty hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falknerreflexor in a fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a resultand that is what really counts.$'s on something that has already been solved and proven to besuccessful? Do what works and go fly your plane. |
|
Allan Farr <afarr@...>
Hi Jim. I understand that originally the Q2 had differential brakes, & that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning faulty in your opinion?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Regards Allan Farr Q2 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 11:28 Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) Dave, I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers? Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it. I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't run across any three handed pilots lately. If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights. He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly! I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame? Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't care to express it. Regards, JP --- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@...> wrote: > > You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a better > idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds like > Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull lever. > Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three > hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and realizes > you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane to > show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is > getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming up > with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to install > the proven six pack. > > I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to first > flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than > argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked pretty > hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner reflexor in a > fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result and that > is what really counts. > > To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and $'s on > something that has already been solved and proven to be successful? Do > what works and go fly your plane. > > Dave Richardson > Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Patillo > Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM > To: Q-LIST@... > Cc: > Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) > > > > > > > |
|
Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
My two cents worth, where I disagree with my good friend, Jim.
1. I do use differential finger brakes, with great success. They are positioned right behind the throttle. I let go of the throttle to use the brakes. You can see my installation here: http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/brakes01.jpg 2. I do have rudder splitters. See the installation here: http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/aircraftdetail/tailcone01.jpg Each cable, splitting off to the rudder bellcrank, has a turnbuckle for adjustment. 3. I do not have the intermediate bellcrank. I believe the single biggest ground handling improvement that can be made is correcting the wheel alignment, per Gall. I made a blog entry about it: http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/ Having said that, I think it's fine for people to install the 6-pack. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to taxi Jim's plane. I thought it felt a lot like mine, though maybe a little "softer" on the rudder pedals due to the tail wheel cable springs. (I bought a set, but never got around to installing them). Jim's point is well taken, if you build like a successful model, you should have the same results as that plane. However, "tame" is a word that is not in my Quickie vocabularly. Sam Hoskins Murpysburger, IL _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:33 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) Fellas, I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday before his first flight and would like to share some info. Even though he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, I found it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight either with rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind was about 12K - 10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no bellcrank but has split the cables internally to rudder and tail wheel and has a modified dual differential finger brake system). Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the problem! Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder. He's installed a modified dual finger brake that has a single stick that slides sideways to apply pressure to one master cylinder or the other or both. That is not good because its way to sensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs. Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the brake and not the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How many serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or heel brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail dragger and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many things going on to be doing this additional "dance". This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods installed are really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to do anything different. Yet we see it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very difficult time handling their planes initially and often crack them up or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you didn't invent it, doesn't mean you can't copy it! The situation with Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with sucessuful Q's all around, yet he chooses to do his own thing. Why? To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a clear undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT! What? I do not understand this. This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the middle of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different route, what does that tell you about builders working on their own, isolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so simple and brace yourself fellas, we're in for more! These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still smacking up their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen who don't want to get hurt. Regards, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line. Bingo! There's a reason. |
|
FR Jones <seabeevet@...>
Jim, I have a Super Quickie and you are right, the brakes scare me a little.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I have no problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ring attached to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or system of which you can send me plans? On 10/19/06, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
|
|
Allan,
I bought my Quickie Kit in October 1981 from the factory. It had a single pull lever that when applied set both brakes. I found this to be totally unacceptable in any kind of crosswind. I did not like the idea but toyed with dual finger brakes not near as close to fininshing as Bob Malachek, Sam Hoskins, Paul Fisher and Tom Moore. So I delayed finishing the brakes knowing some how I was going to install toe brakes. Then I met Bob Farnam and he showed me the fix. Bob had already designed and installed toe brakes so I basically copied his set up. Our toe brake pedal geometry varied a little but both planes handled basically the same....................tame. I didn't do David's alignment becaue the plane was already a "pussycat" . I know for a fact from Sam and others that the alignment worked wonders on many planes. Later Brad Olson, Jeff Rudledge and Mark Summers installed toe brakes with small variations but basically the same. I can say............ tame my good buddy Sam because it's so. Now should we collabrate and make a Q that can kick Klaus' ass? Regards, JP --- In Q-LIST@..., "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote: & that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning faulty in your opinion? Regards |
|
Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
Jones,
Do you have hydraulic or cable brakes? Ryan --- In Q-LIST@..., "FR Jones" <seabeevet@...> wrote: a little. So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. Ihave no problem with steering the plane, but the braking system (A D-ringattached to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design orsystem of which you can send me plans?Saturday runway, Ibefore his first flight and would like to share some info. Even immediatefound it very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight theresponse to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix wayproblem! toto differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the andsensitive and hard to get positive results from known inputs. Hownot the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! installedmany serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or veryare really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the themdifficult time handling their planes initially and often crack withup or have an incident even before the first flight. Because you Why?Wes; here's a very intellignet fella sitting on a field with NOT!To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't have a middleWhat? I do not understand this. own,of LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a different smackingisolated and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so whoup their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen don't want to get hurt. |
|
Terry Crouch is the resident Q1 Wizard. If its been done he knows the
good and bad about it. Regards, Jim Patillo -- In Q-LIST@..., "FR Jones" <seabeevet@...> wrote: little. So far I am still in the taxi phase of learning my airplane. I have noattached to two cables) is not safe. Do you know of a better design or system of |
|
Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
I would like to point out something I think people loose sight of regarding
the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed, and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel. (You could achieve the same thing using split cables and changing the lengths of the control horns on the rudder and tail wheel, but the bell crank is an easy place to change the relative travel.) I understand the tail wheels of some WW II fighters had very little travel, but I can't seem to document that right now. My opinion is that tail draggers that land at high speeds need tail wheels that are "desensitized" with a reduced pivot arc and tail wheel springs. I understand the Q-2 plans from QAC used a tail wheel with a wide pivot arc in order to negotiate tighter corners on airports. This design worked OK on the Quickie, which lands at a lower speed, but has been problematic on the Q-2 and Q-200. The 6-Pack has full pivoting tail wheel and differential brakes to allow you to negotiate tight corners, and a reduced pivot arc and springs to desensitize the tail wheel at high speeds. Jim, I think this is what you meant when you said: "With just splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder." I just wanted to say it more clearly. Mike Perry At 06:33 PM 10/19/2006 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote: Fellas,---------- |
|
David J. Gall
Mike,
You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating: I would like to point out something I think people looseConsider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending on the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal deflection. A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat (giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob? Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to go STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels. The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the tailwheel unlocked.... David J. Gall -----Original Message----- |
|
Allan Farr <afarr@...>
I suggested a locking tailwheel about a year ago, but nobody seemed to think very much of the idea.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Allan F ----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 19:27 Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) Mike, You are SOOOOO right! It bears repeating: > I would like to point out something I think people loose > sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod > allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the > tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the > plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed, > and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The > tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel. Consider that a rudder can have twenty-five or more degrees of deflection before it stalls whereas a tailwheel will start to skid (analogous to airfoil stalling) at between three and seven degrees deflection depending on the type of tire. So you really NEED to have some ratio between the rudder deflection and the tailwheel deflection at any given rudder pedal deflection. A belcrank giving a 3:1 ratio of rudder to tailwheel deflection combined with some springs on the tailwheel to let it trail against load somewhat (giving an even higher effective ratio) might be about right to really desinsitize ("tame") the Q2, but you'd have to put up with a large turning radius at low speeds. Then, too, the ratios described above are mechanical ratios; there is a complicating aerodynamic component that I'm ignoring right now, due to the varying effectiveness of the rudder at varying airspeeds. What ratios are people using, Jim, Bob? Consider also that the main objective of the takeoff or landing run is to go STRAIGHT and you soon realize that the ideal place for the tailwheel is locked, dead straight. Many (most??) WWII fighters had locking tailwheels. The "reduced arc" you refer to, Mike, was essentially nil with directional control provided by rudder and differential brakes only. Of course, some steering capability must be available for low speed taxiing with the tailwheel unlocked.... David J. Gall > -----Original Message----- > From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] > On Behalf Of Mike Perry > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:30 PM > To: Q-LIST@... > Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) > > I would like to point out something I think people loose > sight of regarding the Jim-Bob 6-Pack: The bellcrank mod > allows the builder to reduce the pivot arc (travel) of the > tail wheel relative to the rudder travel. That makes the > plane much less susceptible to sudden swerves at high speed, > and thus easier to control during takeoff and landing. The > tail wheel springs also desensitize the tail wheel. > > (You could achieve the same thing using split cables and > changing the lengths of the control horns on the rudder and > tail wheel, but the bell crank is an easy place to change the > relative travel.) > > I understand the tail wheels of some WW II fighters had very > little travel, but I can't seem to document that right now. > My opinion is that tail draggers that land at high speeds > need tail wheels that are "desensitized" > with a reduced pivot arc and tail wheel springs. > > I understand the Q-2 plans from QAC used a tail wheel with a > wide pivot arc in order to negotiate tighter corners on > airports. This design worked OK on the Quickie, which lands > at a lower speed, but has been problematic on the Q-2 and > Q-200. The 6-Pack has full pivoting tail wheel and > differential brakes to allow you to negotiate tight corners, > and a reduced pivot arc and springs to desensitize the tail > wheel at high speeds. > > Jim, I think this is what you meant when you said: "With just > splitting the cables, Wes has no way to differentiate > (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the rudder." I just > wanted to say it more clearly. > > Mike Perry > > At 06:33 PM 10/19/2006 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote: > > > >Fellas, > > > >I had the opportunity to high speed taxi Wes Isbergs' Q200 Saturday > >before his first flight and would like to share some info. > Even though > >he did a fair job of controlling the plane down the runway, > I found it > >very difficult to handle. I could not keep it straight either with > >rudder or his braking system or the combination. Wind was > about 12K - > >10-15 degrees off the nose. (Note: he has no bellcrank but has split > >the cables internally to rudder and tail wheel and has a > modified dual > >differential finger brake system). > >Guess he didn't buy the Jim/Bob Six Pack Mod concept. My immediate > >response to him was to park the plane before he got hurt and fix the > >problem! > > > >Now for the details. With just splitting the cables, Wes has > no way to > >differentiate (detune)the angle of the tail wheel from the > rudder. He's > >installed a modified dual finger brake that has a single stick that > >slides sideways to apply pressure to one master cylinder or > the other > >or both. That is not good because its way to sensitive and > hard to get > >positive results from known inputs. > >Further exacerabating the situation is his hand is on the > brake and not > >the throttle when taking off or landing. Not a good thing! How many > >serious tail draggers have anything other than toe brakes or heel > >brakes? Its just not natural to have finger brakes on a tail dragger > >and is to dangerous in my opinion. There are way to many > things going > >on to be doing this additional "dance". > > > >This leads me to a conclusion. The Q's with sixpack mods > installed are > >really quite tame, ask anyone who has them. I cannot for the > life of me > >understand why anyone would want to do anything different. > Yet we see > >it all the time. Most new Q pilots have a very difficult > time handling > >their planes initially and often crack them up or have an > incident even > >before the first flight. Because you didn't invent it, > doesn't mean you > >can't copy it! The situation with Wes; here's a very > intellignet fella > >sitting on a field with sucessuful Q's all around, yet he > chooses to do > >his own thing. Why? > >To much additional cost? To much additional labor? Doesn't > have a clear > >undrstanding of the problem? Doesn't know how to fix it - NOT! > >What? I do not understand this. > > > >This leads me to another conclusion. If Wes, sitting in the > middle of > >LVK with sucessful planes all aroud, chooses to go a > different route, > >what does that tell you about builders working on their own, > isolated > >and out of touch? I now understand why this is not so simple > and brace > >yourself fellas, we're in for more! > > > >These comments are in no way intended to bring heat on Wes but to > >simply make a couple of points as to why Q pilots are still > smacking up > >their planes. Hopefully this turns on the lights for someoen > who don't > >want to get hurt. > > > >Regards, > >Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 800 hours in type. So far, even in severe > >crosswinds, this plane has never deviated from the center line. > >Bingo! There's a reason. |
|
Allan Farr <afarr@...>
Thanks for that Jim. When you say that you found the single pull lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC obviously thought the opposite.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Regards Allan F ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Patillo To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 15:22 Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) Allan, I bought my Quickie Kit in October 1981 from the factory. It had a single pull lever that when applied set both brakes. I found this to be totally unacceptable in any kind of crosswind. I did not like the idea but toyed with dual finger brakes not near as close to fininshing as Bob Malachek, Sam Hoskins, Paul Fisher and Tom Moore. So I delayed finishing the brakes knowing some how I was going to install toe brakes. Then I met Bob Farnam and he showed me the fix. Bob had already designed and installed toe brakes so I basically copied his set up. Our toe brake pedal geometry varied a little but both planes handled basically the same....................tame. I didn't do David's alignment becaue the plane was already a "pussycat" . I know for a fact from Sam and others that the alignment worked wonders on many planes. Later Brad Olson, Jeff Rudledge and Mark Summers installed toe brakes with small variations but basically the same. I can say............ tame my good buddy Sam because it's so. Now should we collabrate and make a Q that can kick Klaus' ass? Regards, JP --- In Q-LIST@..., "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote: > > Hi Jim. I understand that originally the Q2 had differential brakes, & that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning faulty in your opinion? > Regards > Allan Farr > Q2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Patillo > To: Q-LIST@... > Sent: Friday, 20 October 2006 11:28 > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) > > > > Dave, > > I hear you loud and clear and it's not that we had a better idea or > that I'm pontificating. The entire tail dragger world had a better > idea. Why don't you see finger brakes on all those tail draggers? > Why do you think finger brakes even came into existance in the Q > world? It was because we realized a single pull hand brake was not > the answer and we needed dual differentiating brakes. A finger brake > modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe brakes so > many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it. > > I'm simply stating what I saw and did. As you point out, you do need > three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't > run across any three handed pilots lately. > > If people want to do things different, thats their perogative. As I > said before, the post was not to denigrate or pupu Wes's idea or > approach but to help prevent crashes before or during first flights. > He was really creative in comming up with a unique differential > finger brake, problem is it doesn't work and its almost counter > intuitive. The control is to seensitive when moving the stick left > to right or visa versa. Having taxied his plane, it just takes so > much more to deal with than toe brakes. He can prove this out really > easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly! > > I know Paul and Sam have finger brakes and have lots of proven hours > on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either > one of them ever had to repair their planes due to a mishap on the > runway/taxiway or are their planes totally tame? > > Many people on this list know what I'm talking about but just don't > care to express it. > > Regards, > > JP > > --- In Q-LIST@..., "Dave Richardson" <dave@> wrote: > > > > You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a > better > > idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds > like > > Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull > lever. > > Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three > > hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and > realizes > > you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane > to > > show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is > > getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming > up > > with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to > install > > the proven six pack. > > > > I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to > first > > flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than > > argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked > pretty > > hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner > reflexor in a > > fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result > and that > > is what really counts. > > > > To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and > $'s on > > something that has already been solved and proven to be > successful? Do > > what works and go fly your plane. > > > > Dave Richardson > > Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Patillo > > Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM > > To: Q-LIST@... > > Cc: > > Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Allan,
Reread my comment. I didn't like the idea of loosing control and not being able to get back to center line way before I installed the brakes. This was obviously the opinion of a lot of others as well and today you see the results. QAC designed a pretty rudimentary airplane. Cheap was a word that was in their vocabulary. Further as David pointed out, we discovered a long time ago that keeping the tailwheel straight as possible on take off or landing was a must in a Q. If you could prevent twitchyness you had much better control. Tailwheel/rudder differential via the bellcrank with internal springs to the tail wheel to absorb side loads and Air Products locking tail wheel did the trick. The new locking/swiveling tailwheel has a 6" bellcrank and the stock rudder has a 3" bellcrank. We simply installed an additional 6" bellcrank behind the FS120 bulkhead. The tailwheel cables attach to the internal bellcrank at 6" (same width as tailwheel bell crank) via springs and the rudder cables attached to the internal bellcrank at 3-4" (same as rudder bellcrank) from rudder to internal bellcrank. Thus a desensitized tailwheel/rudder with proportionally more rudder travel for a given tail wheel input. Hope this clears it up and why the bellcrank/tailwheel combo is a valuable asset on this airplane. Add Gall Alignment and toe brake mod and you have a stable airplane. Regards, Jim Patillo --- In Q-LIST@..., "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote: lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC obviously thought the opposite. Regardsbrake > modification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toebrakes so > many of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it.need > three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven'tflights. > He was really creative in comming up with a unique differentialreally > easy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly!hours > on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has eitherthree > > hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and |
|
Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
This same subject comes up more than any other, so I will add my designs
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
also as I already have many times over. 1) I agree with some that toe brakes are much easier and more convienient than heal or hand brakes, also for me much safer. However I chose to use my own geometry on the pedal to avoid the pedal changing angle with forward and aft movement of the rudder pedal. 2) I do not agree in using a second bellcrank for the rudder/tailwheel, that just adds more fittings and hardware, (more things to break, keep it simple). Mine is plenty beefy and I used springs on the tailwheel like every other taildragger. My cables go directly to the rudder then on to the tailwheel. I won't crash by loosing a tailwheel but just mite if I loose my rudder. 3) I do not agree with the alignment used in the 6 pack, I went a completely different way and now have caster and camber adjustment available. By sighting a line from one axle to a dimension on the other side is no way to align a wheel, Everyone has different weight on their canard and different strength due to each glassed canard is not exactly the same. for the spring effect. I do agree that this is probably the most important item to get your quickie to run true, I do not attach to the outer wheel pant at all, all adjustment is made from the 4 bolts attaching the axle on the inner wheel pant. (just like most other wheel mounts). There is someone on this list that is a DAR and came up with something similar to mine and has the outer part of the wheel pant removable. I really like that as now to change my tire I have to remove the 4 bolts and drop the wheel out of the bottom. If you are building from scratch and are not interested in reviewing each method then I suggest you pay real good attention to the above points, Jim and others have it working so pay attention to them. If you bought someone elses 99% done quickie like I did then all bets are off. You are in for plenty of work. Just be sure you get the alignment right for your weight and exact quickie. Ron Triano South Lake Tahoe, CA The Sonerai is finished and flying finishing the Q200 -----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Dave Richardson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:50 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) You know Jim, it is easy to get so wrapped up in the "I've got a better idea" mode that all other solutions become just noise. It sounds like Wes came up with a neat adaptation of the original single pull lever. Your practical experience shows, though, he would really need three hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you and realizes you are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your plane to show him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his is getting out of his design? I'll bet he spent far more time coming up with his solutions and implementing them than it would take to install the proven six pack. I had something similar happen to me with my reflexor prior to first flight when a major flaw in my design was pointed out. Rather than argue my position, I ripped out the whole mechanisim I worked pretty hard on designing and implementing and installed a Falkner reflexor in a fraction of the time. I have a much safer reflexor as a result and that is what really counts. To Wes and other guys like Wes, why waste your time, energy and $'s on something that has already been solved and proven to be successful? Do what works and go fly your plane. Dave Richardson Tri-Q2 N825DR 84 hrs. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Patillo Sent: Thu 10/19/2006 2:33 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Cc: Subject: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) |
|
Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
I wonder what Klaus is using for a prop and what RPM he is turning. Could he
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
be turning the 4400+ like the formula 1s.? Ron Triano South Lake Tahoe, CA The Sonerai is finished and flying finishing the Q200 -----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:23 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) Allan, I bought my Quickie Kit in October 1981 from the factory. It had a single pull lever that when applied set both brakes. I found this to be totally unacceptable in any kind of crosswind. I did not like the idea but toyed with dual finger brakes not near as close to fininshing as Bob Malachek, Sam Hoskins, Paul Fisher and Tom Moore. So I delayed finishing the brakes knowing some how I was going to install toe brakes. Then I met Bob Farnam and he showed me the fix. Bob had already designed and installed toe brakes so I basically copied his set up. Our toe brake pedal geometry varied a little but both planes handled basically the same....................tame. I didn't do David's alignment becaue the plane was already a "pussycat" . I know for a fact from Sam and others that the alignment worked wonders on many planes. Later Brad Olson, Jeff Rudledge and Mark Summers installed toe brakes with small variations but basically the same. I can say............ tame my good buddy Sam because it's so. Now should we collabrate and make a Q that can kick Klaus' ass? Regards, JP --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote: & that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning faulty in your opinion? RegardsRichardson" <dave@> wrote: better |
|
Ron Triano <rondefly@...>
Allen, whichever rudder/tailwheel system you choose to use you can get the
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
same results if you want to change the angle of the tailwheel. Just think of the tailwheel as a gear with a chain to another gear. Small to big or big to small, If you want less movement at the tailwheel just move the attach holes on the tailwheel bellcrank closer to the center. In other words, big rudder bellcrank small tailwheel bellcrank will let the tailwheel travel less. I presently am flying my Sonerai which also is very twitchy. But the difference between the two is the Sonerai tail is lifted shortly after power applied and you are steering with the rudder only. Most take the Q off in 3 point attitude. The main point I am trying to get across is to study each system, many work just fine. I never like being a Sheep and following the whole pack. These are Experimental aircraft, so try things only after much study and don't be shy to say I was wrong. Ron Triano South Lake Tahoe, CA The Sonerai is finished and flying finishing the Q200 -----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:15 AM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) Allan, Reread my comment. I didn't like the idea of loosing control and not being able to get back to center line way before I installed the brakes. This was obviously the opinion of a lot of others as well and today you see the results. QAC designed a pretty rudimentary airplane. Cheap was a word that was in their vocabulary. Further as David pointed out, we discovered a long time ago that keeping the tailwheel straight as possible on take off or landing was a must in a Q. If you could prevent twitchyness you had much better control. Tailwheel/rudder differential via the bellcrank with internal springs to the tail wheel to absorb side loads and Air Products locking tail wheel did the trick. The new locking/swiveling tailwheel has a 6" bellcrank and the stock rudder has a 3" bellcrank. We simply installed an additional 6" bellcrank behind the FS120 bulkhead. The tailwheel cables attach to the internal bellcrank at 6" (same width as tailwheel bell crank) via springs and the rudder cables attached to the internal bellcrank at 3-4" (same as rudder bellcrank) from rudder to internal bellcrank. Thus a desensitized tailwheel/rudder with proportionally more rudder travel for a given tail wheel input. Hope this clears it up and why the bellcrank/tailwheel combo is a valuable asset on this airplane. Add Gall Alignment and toe brake mod and you have a stable airplane. Regards, Jim Patillo --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Allan Farr" <afarr@...> wrote: lever unacceptable, do you mean from experience or just the thought of it? I'm not getting at anything, I'm just interested because QAC obviously thought the opposite. RegardsFarr" <afarr@> wrote: brake& that QAC changed it to a single pull lever. Was their reasoning brakes somodification is a hell of a lot easier than installing toe needmany of us (Texas contingent)did finger brakes and got use to it. flights.three hands to perform this operation safely. Problem is I haven't reallyHe was really creative in comming up with a unique differential hourseasy. Leave the plane like it is and go fly! Richardson" <dave@> wrote:on them, fine. P.S. They are also really good Q pilots. Has either threebetter hands to make it work safely. I hope Wes listens to you andrealizesyou are not just pontificating. Have you let him taxi your planetoshow him what he could be experiencing as compared to what his isup |
|
denpau@...
I guess the Q2 had many variations in the beginning. A friend gave me his
mechanical (cable) brake pedals (Q2) when he put in hyd. brakes. They slipped on my original Q1 rudder pedals easily. A hole drilled in the end of foot portion of the pedal allows a washer and a cotter pin to secure it. I had to go to motorcycle technology (a cable housing) to get the cable to the canard but it works well. SOME of you guys must remember the Q2 mechanical brakes. Dennis |
|
Dave Richardson <dave@...>
Hi Ron,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I might point out that your disagreements are based on your theoretical observations. The sixpack is based now on repeated experiences by several different pilots. The sixpack bellcrank deals with more issues than your setup with the different ratios being sent to the rudder and tailwheel. That's not to say your system won't work. Heck you could probably take a big stick with you in the cockpit and poke it through holes and drag it on the runway to give you differential braking. People can get used to most anything. I've always heard the best way to do something well is to find someone who is successful and do what they do. Dave Richardson -----Original Message-----
From: Ron Triano Sent: Fri 10/20/2006 8:45 AM To: Q-LIST@... Cc: Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Taxiing before first flight. (long editorial) |
|
Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
I've always heard the best way to do something well is to find someoneIt may be the easiest way to an end, but not necessarily the best. If everyone followed this motto, we'd have no six-pack. For that matter, we'd have no tandem wing aircraft as well as no composite construction. Pat |
|