Flats?


bjaphd <bjaphd@...>
 

Greetings, still looking around at which kit I want to get into.
(probably be a while longer you all have to put up with my dumb
questions - with possibly several years of building I want to be
sure I pick the right one).

I thought of a time a year or two ago when I landed a C-172 with a
flat nosewheel tire. I actually did a fast touch and go first and
noticed a definate problem, although I didn't put full weight on the
nose gear. I brought her around again a little nervously (knew I
had a nose gear issue, I knew it wasn't collapsed, but I was not
sure exactly what the problem was) and kept the nose off as long as
possible and landed a little bumpy but with little other issue.

However.... with all the debate about the difficulty of getting
wheels aligned, finger brakes (or other brakes)adjusted, and that it
appears to not be difficult to ground loop one of these beasts, a
flat in Q may be a very major issue.

So, any comments? Anyone ever put a conventional gear Q down with a
flat main wheel? Do you all use any 'extra' tire precautions given
what I assume would be the greater dependance of this wide stance
gear tail dragger aircraft to tire problems?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Brian


Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

A flat in a conventional gear Q is a very bad thing. I keep a close eye on my tire condition and pressure and am careful where I taxi. 1000+ hours and no flat so far. I do carry a spare inner-tube just in case.
Mike Q200


bjaphd wrote:

Greetings, still looking around at which kit I want to get into.
(probably be a while longer you all have to put up with my dumb questions - with possibly several years of building I want to be sure I pick the right one).
I thought of a time a year or two ago when I landed a C-172 with a flat nosewheel tire. I actually did a fast touch and go first and noticed a definate problem, although I didn't put full weight on the nose gear. I brought her around again a little nervously (knew I had a nose gear issue, I knew it wasn't collapsed, but I was not sure exactly what the problem was) and kept the nose off as long as possible and landed a little bumpy but with little other issue.

However.... with all the debate about the difficulty of getting wheels aligned, finger brakes (or other brakes)adjusted, and that it appears to not be difficult to ground loop one of these beasts, a flat in Q may be a very major issue.

So, any comments? Anyone ever put a conventional gear Q down with a flat main wheel? Do you all use any 'extra' tire precautions given what I assume would be the greater dependance of this wide stance gear tail dragger aircraft to tire problems?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Brian



Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

A flat on a conventional gear IS a major issue. I spend a lot of time
making sure my wheels and brakes are in good condition.

About 10 year back a venerable Q-200 flyer from California had a flat tire
on the way to Oshkosh. I don't remember it was taking off or landing. He
went off the runway and hit a parked aircraft. He was okay, the plane was
totaled.



Sam Hoskins



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
bjaphd
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flats?



Greetings, still looking around at which kit I want to get into.
(probably be a while longer you all have to put up with my dumb
questions - with possibly several years of building I want to be
sure I pick the right one).

I thought of a time a year or two ago when I landed a C-172 with a
flat nosewheel tire. I actually did a fast touch and go first and
noticed a definate problem, although I didn't put full weight on the
nose gear. I brought her around again a little nervously (knew I
had a nose gear issue, I knew it wasn't collapsed, but I was not
sure exactly what the problem was) and kept the nose off as long as
possible and landed a little bumpy but with little other issue.

However.... with all the debate about the difficulty of getting
wheels aligned, finger brakes (or other brakes)adjusted, and that it
appears to not be difficult to ground loop one of these beasts, a
flat in Q may be a very major issue.

So, any comments? Anyone ever put a conventional gear Q down with a
flat main wheel? Do you all use any 'extra' tire precautions given
what I assume would be the greater dependance of this wide stance
gear tail dragger aircraft to tire problems?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Brian


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Following up on Sam's post:

The California flyer was Richard Shapley who lives about 45 miles from me;
I've spoken to him and also to other local EAA guys who knew him at the
time. He had about 700 hours on his Q200 at the time of the
accident. Here is my understanding of what happened:

Richard either took off from here with a tire leak or developed one en
route to Oshkosh. He hoped to get to Oshkosh and replace the tube before
coming home. At each stop he would pump up the tire before takeoff and it
would be low on landing.

Crossing the Rockies (New Mexico I think) he flew higher than on the
previous legs. On landing the wheel locked up and he slid off the runway
and destroyed the canard. I'm pretty sure he hit a runway light, not an
airplane; otherwise the story is as Sam stated. The local speculation is
that by flying higher he increased the pressure differential so the tube
leaked more, but it may just have been a slowly worsening problem.

Several lessons here:
-- Don't ignore a known problem with landing gear
-- Flats can be a very serious problem

I think Richard could have saved the plane if he had differential braking
(toe or finger brakes), but he had only the plans single handle
brakes. This is of course pure speculation on my part.

Mike Perry

At 01:05 PM 12/31/2006 -0600, Sam wrote:

A flat on a conventional gear IS a major issue. I spend a lot of time
making sure my wheels and brakes are in good condition.

About 10 year back a venerable Q-200 flyer from California had a flat tire
on the way to Oshkosh. I don't remember it was taking off or landing. He
went off the runway and hit a parked aircraft. He was okay, the plane was
totaled.

Sam Hoskins

_____

From: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
[mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
bjaphd
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:55 AM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flats?

Greetings, still looking around at which kit I want to get into.
(probably be a while longer you all have to put up with my dumb
questions - with possibly several years of building I want to be
sure I pick the right one).

I thought of a time a year or two ago when I landed a C-172 with a
flat nosewheel tire. I actually did a fast touch and go first and
noticed a definate problem, although I didn't put full weight on the
nose gear. I brought her around again a little nervously (knew I
had a nose gear issue, I knew it wasn't collapsed, but I was not
sure exactly what the problem was) and kept the nose off as long as
possible and landed a little bumpy but with little other issue.

However.... with all the debate about the difficulty of getting
wheels aligned, finger brakes (or other brakes)adjusted, and that it
appears to not be difficult to ground loop one of these beasts, a
flat in Q may be a very major issue.

So, any comments? Anyone ever put a conventional gear Q down with a
flat main wheel? Do you all use any 'extra' tire precautions given
what I assume would be the greater dependance of this wide stance
gear tail dragger aircraft to tire problems?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Brian


Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

I think it was Tahlequah, OK and a Stinson.



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Perry
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:27 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Flats?



Following up on Sam's post:

The California flyer was Richard Shapley who lives about 45 miles from me;
I've spoken to him and also to other local EAA guys who knew him at the
time. He had about 700 hours on his Q200 at the time of the
accident. Here is my understanding of what happened:

Richard either took off from here with a tire leak or developed one en
route to Oshkosh. He hoped to get to Oshkosh and replace the tube before
coming home. At each stop he would pump up the tire before takeoff and it
would be low on landing.

Crossing the Rockies (New Mexico I think) he flew higher than on the
previous legs. On landing the wheel locked up and he slid off the runway
and destroyed the canard. I'm pretty sure he hit a runway light, not an
airplane; otherwise the story is as Sam stated. The local speculation is
that by flying higher he increased the pressure differential so the tube
leaked more, but it may just have been a slowly worsening problem.

Several lessons here:
-- Don't ignore a known problem with landing gear
-- Flats can be a very serious problem

I think Richard could have saved the plane if he had differential braking
(toe or finger brakes), but he had only the plans single handle
brakes. This is of course pure speculation on my part.

Mike Perry

At 01:05 PM 12/31/2006 -0600, Sam wrote:

A flat on a conventional gear IS a major issue. I spend a lot of time
making sure my wheels and brakes are in good condition.

About 10 year back a venerable Q-200 flyer from California had a flat tire
on the way to Oshkosh. I don't remember it was taking off or landing. He
went off the runway and hit a parked aircraft. He was okay, the plane was
totaled.

Sam Hoskins

_____

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
bjaphd
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:55 AM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@yahoogroups.
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flats?

Greetings, still looking around at which kit I want to get into.
(probably be a while longer you all have to put up with my dumb
questions - with possibly several years of building I want to be
sure I pick the right one).

I thought of a time a year or two ago when I landed a C-172 with a
flat nosewheel tire. I actually did a fast touch and go first and
noticed a definate problem, although I didn't put full weight on the
nose gear. I brought her around again a little nervously (knew I
had a nose gear issue, I knew it wasn't collapsed, but I was not
sure exactly what the problem was) and kept the nose off as long as
possible and landed a little bumpy but with little other issue.

However.... with all the debate about the difficulty of getting
wheels aligned, finger brakes (or other brakes)adjusted, and that it
appears to not be difficult to ground loop one of these beasts, a
flat in Q may be a very major issue.

So, any comments? Anyone ever put a conventional gear Q down with a
flat main wheel? Do you all use any 'extra' tire precautions given
what I assume would be the greater dependance of this wide stance
gear tail dragger aircraft to tire problems?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Brian


Bruce Crain
 

Tahlequah, OK is right Sammy. I landed there after the accident and
spoke with the FBO for a short time about it. I don't remember the
type of aircraft. I am sure your right.
Happy New Year!!!!
Bruce
P.S. I may call you tomorrow about aileron bushings as I am going to
try to take out some of the looseness in mine.




________________________________________________________________________
FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637


Larry Severson
 

At 11:05 AM 12/31/2006, you wrote:

A flat on a conventional gear IS a major issue. I spend a lot of time
making sure my wheels and brakes are in good condition.
Both flats and dragging brakes are a serious problem. Ground loops are embarrassing; however, they are relatively painless with the tip gear. I have 5 ground loops. The last 3 were deliberate. When I found it difficult to control the direction, I slammed the rudder in the direction I was being pulled. The highest speed that I have done this is 55mph; however, at any speed I would do this before I would go into the weeds (or other airplanes).

The one time I tried to control the plane instead of the GL, I caused a bit of damage to my plane. With GLs, no damage - only embarrassment.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Thanks for the update. If he took off from around Gallup or Albuquerque
then eastern Oklahoma would have been about 3 hrs flight time but on the
far side of the Sangre de Christos, hence flying at a higher altitude.

I heard most of the story when I bought the kit I'm working on now --
Richard wanted to buy the LS-1 canard from this kit for his repair but Ross
would only sell if Richard took the whole project. They never made a deal,
so now I have a project.

Q-2s aren't too popular around here -- usual reaction: "Do you know how
fast that thing flies on final?" "Do you know about the ground
handling?" et cetera, et cetera. Hence my interest in the Jim-Bob 6-Pack
AND the Gall Wheel alignment.

Mike Perry

At 10:19 PM 12/31/2006 -0600, Sam wrote:

I think it was Tahlequah, OK and a Stinson.

_____

From: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
[mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Perry
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 9:27 PM
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Flats?

Following up on Sam's post:

The California flyer was Richard Shapley who lives about 45 miles from me;
I've spoken to him and also to other local EAA guys who knew him at the
time. He had about 700 hours on his Q200 at the time of the
accident. Here is my understanding of what happened:

Richard either took off from here with a tire leak or developed one en
route to Oshkosh. He hoped to get to Oshkosh and replace the tube before
coming home. At each stop he would pump up the tire before takeoff and it
would be low on landing.

Crossing the Rockies (New Mexico I think) he flew higher than on the
previous legs. On landing the wheel locked up and he slid off the runway
and destroyed the canard. I'm pretty sure he hit a runway light, not an
airplane; otherwise the story is as Sam stated. The local speculation is
that by flying higher he increased the pressure differential so the tube
leaked more, but it may just have been a slowly worsening problem.

Several lessons here:
-- Don't ignore a known problem with landing gear
-- Flats can be a very serious problem

I think Richard could have saved the plane if he had differential braking
(toe or finger brakes), but he had only the plans single handle
brakes. This is of course pure speculation on my part.

Mike Perry

At 01:05 PM 12/31/2006 -0600, Sam wrote:

A flat on a conventional gear IS a major issue. I spend a lot of time
making sure my wheels and brakes are in good condition.

About 10 year back a venerable Q-200 flyer from California had a flat tire
on the way to Oshkosh. I don't remember it was taking off or landing. He
went off the runway and hit a parked aircraft. He was okay, the plane was
totaled.

Sam Hoskins


Larry Severson
 

Q-2s aren't too popular around here -- usual reaction: "Do you know how
fast that thing flies on final?"
80mph, hold off until it touches. Since the seat, when the plane is on the ground is about the height of a chair, getting down to 4 inches is easy. Remember, ground effect starts at 1/2 of the wingspan above the ground. Given the tail dragger setup, the plane is a snap to land for those who take it down next to the ground.

"Do you know about the ground
handling?"
Fantastic, unless you have a dragging brake.

et cetera, et cetera. Hence my interest in the Jim-Bob 6-Pack &#92;
Beneficial.

AND the Gall Wheel alignment.
I personally disagree with the whole theory behind the Gall alignment. But to each his own.

My gear are set up 0/0, and without a dragging brake, I couldn't ask for better. My plane tracks straight as an arrow.

If you have a hard landing, you will get some splay of the gear; but if you have the round bottom tires, it will have no impact. However, if you fly it down to the runway, a hard landing should be rare. In either case on a normal situation, above 50mph, there is very little weight on the wheels, and thus no change in camber than an unloaded wheel.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


twkte <spilligan@...>
 

Fantastic, unless you have a dragging brake.
Larry Severson
Hi Larry, as a newcomer, I'm guessing but unsure if you are referring
to the Drag brake when you say "dragging brake" and not referring to a
sticky brake problem?
Also if this is the drag brake, I wasn't sure if you were implying that
this is counter productive regarding directional stability on the
ground, or a good thing to have. Then I wondered if they were even a
fitted mod on a traditional Q 2 as I only came across it as a result of
going into the Tri-Q setup?

Trevor


Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

Trevor, I believe Larry is referring to a sticky brake, not a "drag brake". The air brake I think your may be referring to is useful in slowing down this otherwise slick bird, but not absolutely necessary. Many high hour pilots, like Sam Hoskins, have done the Gall Wheel alignment and report improved handling on the tail dragger.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: twkte
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:42 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Flats?


> Fantastic, unless you have a dragging brake.
> Larry Severson

Hi Larry, as a newcomer, I'm guessing but unsure if you are referring
to the Drag brake when you say "dragging brake" and not referring to a
sticky brake problem?
Also if this is the drag brake, I wasn't sure if you were implying that
this is counter productive regarding directional stability on the
ground, or a good thing to have. Then I wondered if they were even a
fitted mod on a traditional Q 2 as I only came across it as a result of
going into the Tri-Q setup?

Trevor


Larry Severson
 

I'm guessing but unsure if you are referring
to the Drag brake when you say "dragging brake"
absolutely NOT

and not referring to a
sticky brake problem?
Yes I was.

Also if this is the drag brake, I wasn't sure if you were implying that
this is counter productive regarding directional stability on the
ground, or a good thing to have.
Good thing to have -> no impact on directional control.

Then I wondered if they were even a
fitted mod on a traditional Q 2
Yes


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

To Larry Severson re Gall wheel alignment:

1) What Dave Gall wrote makes sense to me intellectually

2) What he wrote fits with my experience with Dune Buggies (my mis-spent
youth)

3) What he wrote fits with Mike Dwyer's experience with the Q2: "[I
ground looped]. . . when the wheel camber got so bad I couldn't stop
it." see his website, refinishing, bottom of page 2/top of page 3:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1653/re2.html

So, what's your problem with the Gall wheel alignment?

Mike Perry

At 08:06 PM 1/2/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:

[snip]

AND the Gall Wheel alignment.
I personally disagree with the whole theory behind the Gall
alignment. But to each his own.

My gear are set up 0/0, and without a dragging brake, I couldn't ask
for better. My plane tracks straight as an arrow.

If you have a hard landing, you will get some splay of the gear; but
if you have the round bottom tires, it will have no impact. However,
if you fly it down to the runway, a hard landing should be rare. In
either case on a normal situation, above 50mph, there is very little
weight on the wheels, and thus no change in camber than an unloaded wheel.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
<mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com>larry2@...


Larry Severson
 

At 06:07 PM 1/3/2007, you wrote:

To Larry Severson re Gall wheel alignment:

1) What Dave Gall wrote makes sense to me intellectually

2) What he wrote fits with my experience with Dune Buggies (my mis-spent
youth)
The dune buggy does not get lighter on the wheels as the speed increases. An airplane does!


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Larry:

You are correct, an airplane does get lighter on the wheels, the camber
changes, etc. However, If built to plans the Q2xx has 0 camber only at
liftoff speed; at any lesser speed there is some load on the wheels, some
flexion of the canard, some negative camber. The amount of negative camber
varies with the load and airspeed; the risk of ground loop varies with the
load, airspeed and groundspeed.

Negative camber can lead to a positive feedback situation which can be
uncontrollable. (Tailwheel airplanes are prone to ground loops because the
center of gravity is behind the main gear and this also promotes positive
feedback) Positive feedback means whatever change is happening tends to
increase; Negative feedback means whatever change is happening tends to be
damped out.

This is from Mike Dwyer's letter on the subject, Q-List archives 12/28/01:
I assumed that QAC wanted 0 camber at gross when I built my plane (later
known as the Gaul alignment). In the initial taxi and flight tests
another tail dragger pilot said "It handles like it is on a rail", I
agreed. After 15 years the canard sagged enough that I had a fair amount
of camber. See: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1653/r2.html
It slowly (over the years) became less easy to handle on the ground. I
have now put the camber back to 0, had tons of trouble with tire clearance
and the QAC plans brake install. The handling is great again. 2" toe
out, 0 camber at gross, reflexer, one handle brake, standard Q200 built to
plans.
Mike Perry


At 09:30 PM 1/3/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:

At 06:07 PM 1/3/2007, you wrote:

To Larry Severson re Gall wheel alignment:

1) What Dave Gall wrote makes sense to me intellectually

2) What he wrote fits with my experience with Dune Buggies (my mis-spent
youth)
The dune buggy does not get lighter on the wheels as the speed
increases. An airplane does!

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
<mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com>larry2@...


Larry Severson
 

You are correct, an airplane does get lighter on the wheels, the camber
changes, etc. However, If built to plans the Q2xx has 0 camber only at
liftoff speed; at any lesser speed there is some load on the wheels, some
flexion of the canard, some negative camber. The amount of negative camber
varies with the load and airspeed; the risk of ground loop varies with the
load, airspeed and groundspeed.
Agree; however, I suspect that much of the problems stem from the fact that many of the planes have flat bottom (auto/cart) tires. Planes typically have rounded treads to reduce the camber impact. The surface orientation of the tread does not change as the camber is modified by existing conditions. The flat treads will carve a path, like skis on snow, when the camber changes due to change in weight or bounced landings. This WILL cause a turn (and probable GL).

Negative camber can lead to a positive feedback situation which can be
uncontrollable. (Tailwheel airplanes are prone to ground loops because the
center of gravity is behind the main gear and this also promotes positive
feedback) Positive feedback means whatever change is happening tends to
increase; Negative feedback means whatever change is happening tends to be
damped out.
All true; but again, my plane has rounded A/C type treads. With the exception when I have gotten one brake dragging, it has tracked as straight as any plane I have ever flown.

For anyone who insists on flying with flat treads, I would go with the Gall arrangement.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Larry, I suggest you read the early Q-talks. Switching tire shapes did not
seem to make the planes more stable. For example, Bob Malecheck switched
from aircraft tires (McCreary 5.00x5) to Lambs (flat bottom) and the plane
was more stable; however he made other changes at the same time. Certainly
for him the handling was problematic with McCreary aircraft tires. Q-talk
#6 page 7.

I have said this before but I think I should repeat: Many of the pilots
reporting good ground handling are high time pilots. I have about 250
hours. I think anyone in my situation should get every advantage available
-- Gall wheel alignment AND Jim-Bob 6-Pack. Of course, I have to rebuild
my canard anyway, so the decision is a lot simpler for me!

Mike Perry

At 08:25 PM 1/4/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:

[snip]
Agree; however, I suspect that much of the problems stem from the
fact that many of the planes have flat bottom (auto/cart) tires.
Planes typically have rounded treads to reduce the camber impact. The
surface orientation of the tread does not change as the camber is
modified by existing conditions. The flat treads will carve a path,
like skis on snow, when the camber changes due to change in weight or
bounced landings. This WILL cause a turn (and probable GL).


Larry Severson
 

A Many of the pilots
reporting good ground handling are high time pilots. I have about 250
hours.
Ouch. I took 19 years off, but I am military trained and have 14K+ hours.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Steve <sham@...>
 

Since you won't answer your phone (5 calls), would you please update me on

1 Rigsby
2 Invoice for Garcia
a; (Stopped by to pick up check and Debbie did not know anything about it!)
b; (explaination on why I was not contacted when he called)
3. RDJ (Jobs in progress)


Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Flats?


Larry, I suggest you read the early Q-talks. Switching tire shapes did not
seem to make the planes more stable. For example, Bob Malecheck switched
from aircraft tires (McCreary 5.00x5) to Lambs (flat bottom) and the plane
was more stable; however he made other changes at the same time. Certainly
for him the handling was problematic with McCreary aircraft tires. Q-talk
#6 page 7.

I have said this before but I think I should repeat: Many of the pilots
reporting good ground handling are high time pilots. I have about 250
hours. I think anyone in my situation should get every advantage available
-- Gall wheel alignment AND Jim-Bob 6-Pack. Of course, I have to rebuild
my canard anyway, so the decision is a lot simpler for me!

Mike Perry

At 08:25 PM 1/4/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:

> [snip]
>Agree; however, I suspect that much of the problems stem from the
>fact that many of the planes have flat bottom (auto/cart) tires.
>Planes typically have rounded treads to reduce the camber impact. The
>surface orientation of the tread does not change as the camber is
>modified by existing conditions. The flat treads will carve a path,
>like skis on snow, when the camber changes due to change in weight or
>bounced landings. This WILL cause a turn (and probable GL).


Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

Ok, here is your invoice.
Send $175 to me today. Paypal is acceptable.
Thanks,
Mike



Steve wrote:

Since you won't answer your phone (5 calls), would you please update me on
1 Rigsby
2 Invoice for Garcia
a; (Stopped by to pick up check and Debbie did not know anything about it!)
b; (explaination on why I was not contacted when he called)
3. RDJ (Jobs in progress)


Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry To: Q-LIST@... Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Flats?


Larry, I suggest you read the early Q-talks. Switching tire shapes did not seem to make the planes more stable. For example, Bob Malecheck switched from aircraft tires (McCreary 5.00x5) to Lambs (flat bottom) and the plane was more stable; however he made other changes at the same time. Certainly for him the handling was problematic with McCreary aircraft tires. Q-talk #6 page 7.

I have said this before but I think I should repeat: Many of the pilots reporting good ground handling are high time pilots. I have about 250 hours. I think anyone in my situation should get every advantage available -- Gall wheel alignment AND Jim-Bob 6-Pack. Of course, I have to rebuild my canard anyway, so the decision is a lot simpler for me!

Mike Perry

At 08:25 PM 1/4/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:

> [snip]
>Agree; however, I suspect that much of the problems stem from the
>fact that many of the planes have flat bottom (auto/cart) tires.
>Planes typically have rounded treads to reduce the camber impact. The
>surface orientation of the tread does not change as the camber is
>modified by existing conditions. The flat treads will carve a path,
>like skis on snow, when the camber changes due to change in weight or
>bounced landings. This WILL cause a turn (and probable GL).








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

Yahoo! Groups Links