G-BXOY Rudder Horn & Intermediary device


Mike Perry
 

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot. I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@... wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing, in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Clive Clapham
 

Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@... wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Clive Clapham
 

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive


Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Jim Patillo
 

Just curious Clive. How many flight hours do you have on this design.

Regards,
Jim Patillo

--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@..." <gobxoy@...> wrote:

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive



Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Mike Perry
 

Thanks Clive, I appreciate the description and pictures.

I have to rebuild the tail/tailwheel area. I am looking to run the cables to the rudder then to the tailwheel -- Your approach seems better than how I was planning to do it. Still in the thinking stage (current project is the canard).

Mike Perry

gobxoy@... wrote:


Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@... wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy
___


Clive Clapham
 

Jim

I have about fifty plus the other one has more hundred plus.

My original post made it clear that yours and Jim's bell crank has a well proven track record.

BTW Jim did you test Paul Lipps three blade prop on your Quickie? What were your impression?

kindest regards
Clive Clapham



Just curious Clive. How many flight hours do you have on this design.

Regards,
Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive



Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Clive Clapham
 

Mike

Your welcome. Always nice to be appreciated.

Let me know how you get on?

How about posting some pictures?

Clive


Thanks Clive, I appreciate the description and pictures.

I have to rebuild the tail/tailwheel area. I am looking to run the
cables to the rudder then to the tailwheel -- Your approach seems better
than how I was planning to do it. Still in the thinking stage (current
project is the canard).

Mike Perry

gobxoy@... wrote:


Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a
1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran
it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including
welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as
well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier
cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had
a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close
to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a
small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other
holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The
remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring
compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward
about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal
operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are
disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as
normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8"
version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel
plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the
rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push
the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and
bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to
inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to
convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy
___


Jim Patillo
 

Clive,

Thanks for the reply. Looks like your simpler design works. Now we have options!

I only had paul's two blade on my plane for evaluation. Never used his three blade.

Regards,
Jim

--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@..." <gobxoy@...> wrote:

Jim

I have about fifty plus the other one has more hundred plus.

My original post made it clear that yours and Jim's bell crank has a well proven track record.

BTW Jim did you test Paul Lipps three blade prop on your Quickie? What were your impression?

kindest regards
Clive Clapham


Just curious Clive. How many flight hours do you have on this design.

Regards,
Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive



Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Bartholomew Hanson Fisher
 

What was it like, was there any improvement? I really like the theory behind the development


Sent on the Sprint« Now Network from my BlackBerry«

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@...>

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:16:29
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: G-BXOY Rudder Horn & Intermediary device



Clive,

Thanks for the reply. Looks like your simpler design works. Now we have options!

I only had paul's two blade on my plane for evaluation. Never used his three blade.

Regards,
Jim

--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@..." <gobxoy@...> wrote:

Jim

I have about fifty plus the other one has more hundred plus.

My original post made it clear that yours and Jim's bell crank has a well proven track record.

BTW Jim did you test Paul Lipps three blade prop on your Quickie? What were your impression?

kindest regards
Clive Clapham


Just curious Clive. How many flight hours do you have on this design.

Regards,
Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive



Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy


Jim Patillo
 

I'm for simplicity but without having the ability to fly both designs back to back it may be difficult to quantify if the net handling results are the same.

We have springs on either side of the bell crank which tend to dampen things and make for docile landings. Cross wind are not an issue. Does your setup have the same?

Jim

--- In Q-LIST@..., fisherb@... wrote:

What was it like, was there any improvement? I really like the theory behind the development


Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@...>

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:16:29
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: G-BXOY Rudder Horn & Intermediary device



Clive,

Thanks for the reply. Looks like your simpler design works. Now we have options!

I only had paul's two blade on my plane for evaluation. Never used his three blade.

Regards,
Jim

--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Jim

I have about fifty plus the other one has more hundred plus.

My original post made it clear that yours and Jim's bell crank has a well proven track record.

BTW Jim did you test Paul Lipps three blade prop on your Quickie? What were your impression?

kindest regards
Clive Clapham


Just curious Clive. How many flight hours do you have on this design.

Regards,
Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive



Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy





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


Clive Clapham
 

Jim

Yes it is all quantitative as far as the actual overall results go.

It achieved all I wanted. A huge improvement, to also answer fisherb2000.

You guessed right the tailwheel system has no additional springs only the light tension springs as plans at the firewall. There is dampening in the pneumatic tailwheel of course. I am low time pilot and the planes cross wind limit far exceeds mine. My test pilot borrowed it for a skiing trip to Switzerland, skis and baggage, so the fifty hours is two pilots. I think he is 600 hours plus on various Quickies and as I said in the earlier post he converted his the same, his is a turbo Revmaster with a Andair 4" mine is 6" (kite skate board).

Both design iterations the effect overall is similar, in that if the tailwheel was lost both designs retain rudder control, and allow different gearing between tail wheel and rudder.

Obviously both systems came from a desire to lessen what was a poor original design and the changes and we both made also changed pivots/springs and wheels at the same time not just one element make comparison even more difficult for comparison.

Who's to say that someone won't take my link and your tail wheel or your set up with a pneumatic wheel.

Realistically no one with your's and Jim's set up is, going to want or need to change it. If others want copy what I've done, and they are pleased with the results then that good too. If they want any more details I'm happy to help too.

I know the whole tail wheel/spring has been in the contentious very past, so I am more that pleased that you see it as a simple alternative.

On the Lipps prop. my screen saver looks like your plane with a Lipps three blader. Is that so and you could not fly it? What was the two blader like? The impression I get is that they are are so finely tuned to the airframe that comparison is difficult.

Opening line says it all.

Clive.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:


I'm for simplicity but without having the ability to fly both designs back to back it may be difficult to quantify if the net handling results are the same.

We have springs on either side of the bell crank which tend to dampen things and make for docile landings. Cross wind are not an issue. Does your setup have the same?

Jim


--- In Q-LIST@..., fisherb@ wrote:

What was it like, was there any improvement? I really like the theory behind the development


Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@>

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:16:29
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: G-BXOY Rudder Horn & Intermediary device



Clive,

Thanks for the reply. Looks like your simpler design works. Now we have options!

I only had paul's two blade on my plane for evaluation. Never used his three blade.

Regards,
Jim

--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Jim

I have about fifty plus the other one has more hundred plus.

My original post made it clear that yours and Jim's bell crank has a well proven track record.

BTW Jim did you test Paul Lipps three blade prop on your Quickie? What were your impression?

kindest regards
Clive Clapham


Just curious Clive. How many flight hours do you have on this design.

Regards,
Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "gobxoy@" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Hi again Mike

Added the photos check carefully earlier photo relabled shows articulation.

Clive



Hi Mike

Glad to see someone's awake.

I will upload some more pictures shortly.

The idea came to me whilst I was replacing the tail spring, welded a 1.1/4" hole saw to same sized 15" tube to make a 18" deep hole saw ran it up the remains of the tail spring only took an hour including welding etc. Leaves a hole just right to flox in a new one.

I knew that if you lost the tail wheel you also lost rudder control as well.

I looked at the JimBob bell crank, and felt there was an easier cheaper and lighter way to get all the benefits.

Forty years ago my brother had a control line model aircraft that had a triangle with a hole a each point. That sort of did something close to what I wanted.

After a bit of playing around I came up with a small s/s triangle.

Bolt on the rudder horn mine is taped so the nut is a lock nut and a small spacer to stop the thimbles contacting the horn. The other holes, one connects directly to a shortened normal rudder cable. The remaining rearward connects to the tailwheel horn.

This was repeated on the other side.

I only needed about 30" of extra cable(cheap or what).

The Triangle articulates to accommodate the differential action/spring compression etc. Brilliant.

Disconcet one or both cables to the tailwheel rudder works just fine
all that happens is the foot controls in the cockpit move forward about 1/2". This is because the triangle is neutral(ish) under normal operation and displaces forward when the tailwheel cables are disconnected. It's all tensioned by the bulkhead springs and pilot as normal. You need to take care to maintain the peddle position.

To keep it all lined up I cut out the penolic and used a 5/16" or 3/8" version of the elevator pin bolted to a 1/8" thick 1" X 1.1/2" steel plate, all glassed in with 3X Bid, there is no pull back on the rudder. The horn tube was lengthened so to remove the rudder you push the weldment up rather than down.

Lightweight and cheap, as it saves the extra duplicated cable run and bell crank. Cannot jam from something inside the tail cone easy to inspect as all external.

Clean and sanitary looking.

Never did like the spring tensioning arrangement cobbled up by QAC.

My test pilot thought it was c__p but asked me to make him the bits to convert his when he had flown it.

Obviously the usual disclaimer applies you copy you test it your risk.

Clive

Hello Clive:

I am very interested in how you did the rudder horns and rudder pivot.
I would appreciate more photos and/or more description.

Thanks -- Mike Perry

gobxoy@ wrote:


Hi Guys

[snip]

As you already have the bell crank, there's not much point changing,
in the UK I came up with an alternative used on two Quickies. It's
simply a small triangle of SS sheet with three holes on each rudders
horn. Which is lowered and the pivot moved to inside the rudder horn
much like a larger elevator outer pivot, we ditched the pesky
inadequate penolic bearing. It achieves a similar result, in that the
ratios can be independent. It still gives rudder if the tail wheel is
dangling in the air. Still reliant on the same number of splices, but
simpler and lighter and easy to inspect, doesn't have anything inside
the fuselage. There is a picture in the gobxoy album. Can add clearer
shot if anyone asks.

The Gall essay is exemplary. Well worth reading.

Clive Clapham gobxoy







Jim Patillo
 

Clive,

My bad! Cactus Grass Dug has pointed out that we did install Paul's 3 blade on my plane in 2005.

The results with Paul's prop taken off his 360 Lancair and bolted directly onto mine showed similar results to the Catto two blade I run. Remember Paul's prop is designed for his airplane adn was a little over pitched for me.

If Paul designed one for the Quickie it would produce more speed as his prop is very effecient.

As a point of reference, Brad has a Catto three blaed installed on his Q. It produces the same speeds as my two blade down low. At altitude because dual electronics, I have the edge.

Jim

On the Lipps prop. my screen saver looks like your plane with a Lipps three blader. Is that so and you could not fly it? What was the two blader like? The impression I get is that they are are so finely tuned to the airframe that comparison is difficult.


Clive Clapham
 

Jim

Thought I was holucanatin(sic).

Your impression and comets appreciated.

Here's a link to magnicor catalogue zipped.

http://www.magnecor.com/magnecor1/files/cattledog.zip

regards

Clive

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



Clive,

My bad! Cactus Grass Dug has pointed out that we did install Paul's 3 blade on my plane in 2005.

The results with Paul's prop taken off his 360 Lancair and bolted directly onto mine showed similar results to the Catto two blade I run. Remember Paul's prop is designed for his airplane adn was a little over pitched for me.

If Paul designed one for the Quickie it would produce more speed as his prop is very effecient.

As a point of reference, Brad has a Catto three blaed installed on his Q. It produces the same speeds as my two blade down low. At altitude because dual electronics, I have the edge.

Jim




On the Lipps prop. my screen saver looks like your plane with a Lipps three blader. Is that so and you could not fly it? What was the two blader like? The impression I get is that they are are so finely tuned to the airframe that comparison is difficult.