Date
1 - 9 of 9
Incidence Measurement
|
sdhall <sdhall@...>
Jay:
Once you are done with the incidence measurement, I would be curious to see how performance (speed) may correlate with deviation from neutral incidence? I would suspect that the higher the relative incidence angles, the more correction would need to be made from true airfoil to achieve neutral angles, either by elevator or reflexor. I realize that powerplant configuration may be a significant other factor, but relation to relative incidence may still be useful. thanks Sanjay _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:24 AM To: Q-list@... Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Made it home finally Hi Jon, There was slight method to my madness in not measuring your airplane. I noodled and came up with the concept that I could measure yours and Paul Spackman's away from the airshow circuit because you are in the "neighborhood" so to speak. And I did not measure Bruce's because I thought he might try to make the Livermore flyin, and I guessed right on that. Maybe he can come to Grand Junction sometime also. I would have loved to measure Dave Dugas' plane, it is such a nice one, but he only came for the steak dinner :-) As far as your plane goes, I think we could meet in Cortez (CTZ). That is an nice little strip and should be easy for both of us to get to. I have to trim up the template for the GU a bit, and I can do that for either yours or Paul's plane, whichever one I get to first. Will be nice to have a few GU canards in the mix. Send me your phone number offline (Scheevel@bresnan. <mailto:Scheevel%40bresnan.net> net) and I will give you a call about timing in a week or so. By the way, I did enjoy your arrival display in Beatrice, even though no one else was there to see it. (If a tree falls in a forest.... :) Cheers, Jay - Tri-Q still building. "I am very suspicious that my wing/canard is 'way out of whack'. Anytime you are thru the area or even reasonably close (I could meet you somewhere) and want to measure it, please let me know and we'll get 'er done." |
|
|
|
MartinErni@...
Jim,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I think what you are saying only suggest that your ground angle of attack is correct. I don't think you can assume that your cruise AOA is good because of your lift off. If that were the case all the Trigear Quickies would be awful. All that I am aware, of take a huge pull to get them off the ground. That is because of the main gear location and ground AOA. But this does not seem to have any negative effect on cruise. Earnest In a message dated 10/8/2009 5:05:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
q2robertson@... writes: Jim, I believe what you've said below is true for a tail dragger Q. My Q2 used to levitate off the runway as well with neutral control settings and it's performance was very good. Now with the Tri-Q2 it's a different story. I don't know if other Tri-Q2 drivers notice this, but my Tri-Q2 will stay on the runway forever unless I pull it off. It is also a fast TriQ, in fact very close to the performance of my taildragger Q2. The take off is very different though. My TriQ-2 has the LS1 canard. Rene Q2 C-GTCA --- On Thu, 10/8/09, Jim P <_logistics_engineerilogistics__ (mailto:logistics_engineering@...) > wrote: From: Jim P <_logistics_engineerilogistics__ (mailto:logistics_engineering@...) > Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Incidence Measurement To: _Q-LIST@... (mailto:Q-LIST@...) Received: Thursday, October 8, 2009, 4:39 PM Sanjay, I believe that getting the canard and main wing angle incidences correct makes the difference between a fast Q and the rest. Early on I said the plane should be built to fly off the runway (neutral stick)without aid of aft stick, reflexors, t-tails, etc. When you achieve that you will have a fast Q given the right amount of HP. If it is set up correctly, the plane feels more like its levitating rather than being forced off the ground. When you hear pilots talk about using reflexor during takeoff or landing that tells me that their wings are not set quite right. Just my point of view. It doesn't surprise me what Jay is finding. In fact, his measurements will bsically prove there is a lot of room for error and the plane will still fly......... ......... just not as fast. Regards, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200+ --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. com, "sdhall" <sdhall@...> wrote: see how performance (speed) may correlate with deviation from neutralincidence? I would suspect that the higher the relative incidence angles, the morefactor, but relation to relative incidence may still be useful.com [ma Jay Scheevelthought he might try to make the Livermore flyin, and I guessed right on that.Maybe he can come to Grand Junction sometime also. I would have loved tomeasure Dave Dugas' plane, it is such a nice one, but he only came for the steakis an nice little strip and should be easy for both of us to get to. I have toyours or Paul's plane, whichever one I get to first. Will be nice to have a few GUone else was there to see it. (If a tree falls in a forest.... :)you are thru the area or even reasonably close (I could meet you somewhere)and want to measure it, please let me know and we'll get 'er done."__________________________________________________________ Get the name you've always wanted @ymail.com or @rocketmail.Get the_http://ca.promos.http://ca.http:/_ (http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
Sanjay,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I believe that getting the canard and main wing angle incidences correct makes the difference between a fast Q and the rest. Early on I said the plane should be built to fly off the runway (neutral stick)without aid of aft stick, reflexors, t-tails, etc. When you achieve that you will have a fast Q given the right amount of HP. If it is set up correctly, the plane feels more like its levitating rather than being forced off the ground. When you hear pilots talk about using reflexor during takeoff or landing that tells me that their wings are not set quite right. Just my point of view. It doesn't surprise me what Jay is finding. In fact, his measurements will bsically prove there is a lot of room for error and the plane will still fly..................just not as fast. Regards, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200+ --- In Q-LIST@..., "sdhall" <sdhall@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Rene Robertson <q2robertson@...>
Jim, I believe what you've said below is true for a tail dragger Q. My Q2 used to levitate off the runway as well with neutral control settings and it's performance was very good.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Now with the Tri-Q2 it's a different story. I don't know if other Tri-Q2 drivers notice this, but my Tri-Q2 will stay on the runway forever unless I pull it off. It is also a fast TriQ, in fact very close to the performance of my taildragger Q2. The take off is very different though. My TriQ-2 has the LS1 canard. Rene Q2 C-GTCA --- On Thu, 10/8/09, Jim P <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
From: Jim P <logistics_engineering@...> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Incidence Measurement To: Q-LIST@... Received: Thursday, October 8, 2009, 4:39 PM Sanjay, I believe that getting the canard and main wing angle incidences correct makes the difference between a fast Q and the rest. Early on I said the plane should be built to fly off the runway (neutral stick)without aid of aft stick, reflexors, t-tails, etc. When you achieve that you will have a fast Q given the right amount of HP. If it is set up correctly, the plane feels more like its levitating rather than being forced off the ground. When you hear pilots talk about using reflexor during takeoff or landing that tells me that their wings are not set quite right. Just my point of view. It doesn't surprise me what Jay is finding. In fact, his measurements will bsically prove there is a lot of room for error and the plane will still fly......... ......... just not as fast. Regards, Jim Patillo N46JP Q200+ --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. com, "sdhall" <sdhall@...> wrote:
__________________________________________________________________ Get the name you've always wanted @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
|
MartinErni@...
I would agree that your setup sounds optimal. My Triq works the same except
for take off. Then the tail dragger does a better job. Earnest n a message dated 10/8/2009 8:42:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, logistics_engineering@... writes: Good afternoon Earnest, Glad to here from you. Again, I am refering to my Q200/0200 with LS1 canard for reference only. I appreciate your input and it makes sense. I know nothing about Q2's with GU's or Tri-Q's with Eppler's, for that matter. Alls I know is that my plane pretty much levitates with neutral stick, the control surfaces fare in cruise and it goes pretty fast, all without touching the reflexor. Wouldn't that indicate that the wings were installed optimally? I still think deviations on either side of that called out by QAC has some negative effect on speed. I believe my canard has a 7.5 degree angle of incidence when sitting on the gear and the main was installed per Q2 plans. Best regards, Jim P BTW: What is the cruise and top speed on a FIXED PITCH Tri-Q with 0200 AND LS1 CANARD? ANYBODY? --- In _Q-LIST@... (mailto:Q-LIST@...) , MartinErni@., Mar good because of your lift off. If that were the case all the Trigear Quickiesthe ground. That is because of the main gear location and ground AOA. Butthis does not seem to have any negative effect on cruise.Q2 used to levitate off the runway as well with neutral control settingsand it's performance was very good. drivers notice this, but my Tri-Q2 will stay on the runway foreverunless I pull it off. It is also a fast TriQ, in fact very close to the(mailto:Q-LIST@...) ) Received: Thursday, October 8, 2009, 4:39 PMof aft stick, reflexors, t-tails, etc. When you achieve that you will have afast Q given the right amount of HP. If it is set up correctly, the plane feelsyou hear pilots talk about using reflexor during takeoff or landing thattells me that their wings are not set quite right. Just my point of view.will bsically prove there is a lot of room for error and the plane will stillto seeQ-LIST@yahoogroups.how performance (speed) may correlate with deviation from neutralincidence?I would suspect that the higher the relative incidence angles, the morefactor, com [maPaulJay Scheevel> To: Q-list@yahoogroups. com Spackman's away from the airshow circuit because you are in thethought Maybesteakhe can come to Grand Junction sometime also. I would have loved tomeasureDave Dugas' plane, it is such a nice one, but he only came for the todinner :-)is an GUtrim up the template for the GU a bit, and I can do that for eitheryours orPaul's plane, whichever one I get to first. Will be nice to have a few (Scheevel@bresnan.canards in the mix. Send me your phone number offline no<mailto:Scheevel% 40bresnan. net> net) oneAnytimeelse was there to see it. (If a tree falls in a forest.... :)> Jay - Tri-Q still building. yousomewhere)are thru the area or even reasonably close (I could meet you and(http://ca.promos.http//ca.http:/_) (_http://ca.promos.http://ca.http:/_want to measure it, please let me know and we'll get 'er done.">____________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/) )
|
|
|
|
Rene,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
You are correct. I am only speaking from my experiences in a Q200/0200A with LS1 canard......Sorry for the confusion. Jim --- In Q-LIST@..., Rene Robertson <q2robertson@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Good afternoon Earnest,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Glad to here from you. Again, I am refering to my Q200/0200 with LS1 canard for reference only. I appreciate your input and it makes sense. I know nothing about Q2's with GU's or Tri-Q's with Eppler's, for that matter. Alls I know is that my plane pretty much levitates with neutral stick, the control surfaces fare in cruise and it goes pretty fast, all without touching the reflexor. Wouldn't that indicate that the wings were installed optimally? I still think deviations on either side of that called out by QAC has some negative effect on speed. I believe my canard has a 7.5 degree angle of incidence when sitting on the gear and the main was installed per Q2 plans. Best regards, Jim P BTW: What is the cruise and top speed on a FIXED PITCH Tri-Q with 0200 AND LS1 CANARD? ANYBODY? --- In Q-LIST@..., MartinErni@... wrote:
|
|
|
|
sdhall <sdhall@...>
Since the additional drag on a TriQ comes from the gear, which are lower, it
should require additional positive pitching (nose up) action on the part of the controls. So either the TriQ would be setup for more positive pitch by increased relative incidence between canard and wing, or should require more nose-up elevator or reflexor. I would suspect then, that TriQ should be setup for somewhat increased relative incidence. Is this so? Jay's data may shed light on this. Sanjay _____ From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of MartinErni@... Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:40 PM To: Q-LIST@... Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Incidence Measurement I would agree that your setup sounds optimal. My Triq works the same except for take off. Then the tail dragger does a better job. Earnest n a message dated 10/8/2009 8:42:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, logistics_engineeri <mailto:logistics_engineering%40msn.com> ng@... writes: Good afternoon Earnest, Glad to here from you. Again, I am refering to my Q200/0200 with LS1 canard for reference only. I appreciate your input and it makes sense. I know nothing about Q2's with GU's or Tri-Q's with Eppler's, for that matter. Alls I know is that my plane pretty much levitates with neutral stick, the control surfaces fare in cruise and it goes pretty fast, all without touching the reflexor. Wouldn't that indicate that the wings were installed optimally? I still think deviations on either side of that called out by QAC has some negative effect on speed. I believe my canard has a 7.5 degree angle of incidence when sitting on the gear and the main was installed per Q2 plans. Best regards, Jim P BTW: What is the cruise and top speed on a FIXED PITCH Tri-Q with 0200 AND LS1 CANARD? ANYBODY? --- In _Q-LIST@yahoogroups <mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L> .Q-L_ (mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com) , MartinErni@., Mar good because of your lift off. If that were the case all the Trigear Quickiesthe ground. That is because of the main gear location and ground AOA. Butthis does not seem to have any negative effect on cruise.Q2 used to levitate off the runway as well with neutral control settingsand it's performance was very good. drivers notice this, but my Tri-Q2 will stay on the runway foreverunless I pull it off. It is also a fast TriQ, in fact very close to the<mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L> .Q-L_ (mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com) ) Received: Thursday, October 8, 2009, 4:39 PMof aft stick, reflexors, t-tails, etc. When you achieve that you will have afast Q given the right amount of HP. If it is set up correctly, the plane feelsyou hear pilots talk about using reflexor during takeoff or landing thattells me that their wings are not set quite right. Just my point of view.will bsically prove there is a lot of room for error and the plane will stillto seeQ-LIST@yahoogroups.how performance (speed) may correlate with deviation from neutralincidence?I would suspect that the higher the relative incidence angles, the morefactor, com [maPaulJay Scheevel Spackman's away from the airshow circuit because you are in thethought Maybesteakhe can come to Grand Junction sometime also. I would have loved tomeasureDave Dugas' plane, it is such a nice one, but he only came for the todinner :-)is an GUtrim up the template for the GU a bit, and I can do that for eitheryours orPaul's plane, whichever one I get to first. Will be nice to have a few (Scheevel@bresnan.canards in the mix. Send me your phone number offline no<mailto:Scheevel% 40bresnan. net> net) oneAnytimeelse was there to see it. (If a tree falls in a forest.... :) yousomewhere)are thru the area or even reasonably close (I could meet you andhttp://ca.http://_want to measure it, please let me know and we'll get 'er done."____________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (http://ca.promos. <http://ca.promos.http//ca.http:/_> http//ca.http:/_) (_http://ca.promos. <http://ca.promos.http://ca.http:/_> http://ca.http:/_ (http://ca.promos. <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/> yahoo.com/jacko/) ) |
|
|
|
Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...>
Jim P. writes: "I believe that getting the canard and main wing angle
incidences correct makes the difference " Hi Jim, I think we are in violent agreement on this point, and I think that it is something that most who are familiar with the design also understand viscerally. _ Sanjay, my intent is to eventually get to a correlation with "performance", but the performance term is hard to quantify. I will keep adding to the study and eventually get there. Jim's points are valid and it is important to point out that the Q was designed to be a tail dragger so 7.5 degrees or so of incidence on both wings is required for takeoff at the minimum t/o airspeed. _ I am building the tri-Q, so Rene's comment is relevant to me, as I intend retain the relative incidence between wing and canard that is called for in the plans, but to have a higher wing (both wings) incidence relative to the fuselage. In this way I will start out on the runway with a little more incidence than most tri-Q's and need less velocity and stick deflection "pour le decollage", avoiding some of what Rene describes. _ Anyway, there is much more to come on this, and to make Jim Masal happy, I will make sure there are lots of data to support the discussion further. I will be happy to keep measuring planes where ever I find them, or if they want to find me, I am in Grand Junction Colorado. Jim, you Bob Farnam and Alan T. are high on the list, because I can probably fly to LVK enroute to some of the work I am doing in Southern California....Let me know if you are willing to subject your planes to a little harmless static analysis....(may ask for a ride too :-)> Cheers, Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building |
|
|