Progress update


Martin Skiby
 

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin


Mike Dwyer
 

Hi Martin, I went looking for the pictures you posted on Yahoo but there are 87 directorys of pictures and I don't know which ones are yours...



Great job Jay and Rick!



Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP


________________________________

To: Q-LIST@...
From: mskiby@...
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 22:22:52 +0000
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress update



So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on
the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to
help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this
point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made
the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia
Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower
in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some
work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new
photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane
before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus
far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin


Skyraider
 

Hey Mike, 

 look for the link at the bottom of his post..
 in blue background  titled: Recent Activity.

Charlie NJ.



________________________________
From: Mike Dwyer <q2pilot@...>
To: q-list@...
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Progress update


 

Hi Martin, I went looking for the pictures you posted on Yahoo but there are 87 directorys of pictures and I don't know which ones are yours...

Great job Jay and Rick!

Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP

________________________________
To: Q-LIST@...
From: mskiby@...
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 22:22:52 +0000
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress update



So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on
the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to
help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this
point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made
the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia
Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower
in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some
work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new
photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane
before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus
far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin

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


Lynn French
 

If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mskiby@...> wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Mick Davies <mickdavies1967@...>
 

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80 kts, as the aircraft was “wheelbarrowing” down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults) done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com> wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Jay Scheevel
 

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing, negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is +0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@...> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80 kts, as the aircraft was “wheelbarrowing� down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults) done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com> wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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


Lynn French
 

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@... wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing, negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is +0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@...> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80 kts, as the aircraft was “wheelbarrowing” down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults) done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com> wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor. Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@...
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@...> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was “wheelbarrowing” down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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


Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor. Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@...
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was â€Å"wheelbarrowingâ€Â� down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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


kr2flyer1986
 

My tri-q200 with the 3 degrees up on the waddlow canard worked perfectly. It would fly great with no reflexor required. I only required reflexor to adjust for load.
N817rc now resides in Texas with the new owner.
Bob Clark
Ankeny,Iowa
Soon to reside in Florida!
On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:02 AM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor. Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@...
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was √¢‚Ǩ≈"wheelbarrowing√¢‚Ǩ¬ù down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

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


Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks Bob for your input. Seems to validate what Lynn was saying.

Glad you got your plane sold, but sorry we will not see you in a Q in the future. Maybe we will still see you at some fly-ins?

Now just waiting for Kevin to chime in. He has a lot of time in his tri-Q200 that has virtually no positive incidence on the canard relative to the wing. Kevin? Care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Bob Clark <kr2flyer1986@...> wrote:

My tri-q200 with the 3 degrees up on the waddlow canard worked perfectly. It would fly great with no reflexor required. I only required reflexor to adjust for load.
N817rc now resides in Texas with the new owner.
Bob Clark
Ankeny,Iowa
Soon to reside in Florida!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:02 AM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor. Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it√¢‚Ǩ‚Ã`¢s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn√¢‚Ǩ‚Ã`¢t get airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was √¢‚Ǩ≈"wheelbarrowing√¢‚Ǩ¬ù down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links









------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links







Kevin Boddicker
 

Jay,
Mine is very touchy. If you have the reflexor all the way up on TO it will become nose high very quickly upon rotation. I fly with some reflexor up all the time, with some down elevator. If I trim the elevator in flush I need to adjust the reflexor to compensate for that. I very rarely us the elevator trim. It just free wheels all the time. Only use it for a gust lock on the ground. With the elevator free wheeling, I use the reflexor to trim for level flight.
I do not rotate on TO before 80MPH, as it will just slow me down with the elevator acting as an air brake. I have to hold forward stick until I get enough lift on the elevator to counteract the sparrow strainers. If I did not do this the elevator would be fully deployed by the sparrow strainers. I have never tried to just let the elevators and sparrow strainers find there own equilibrium. Figured it would take up too much runway. All the above is with just fuel and pilot. Adding weight changes the whole ball game. That is why there is a flight test period in Phase 1.
Rotate at 80.
Climb at 100
Cruise at 140 @ 2400RPM
Aprox 5 GPH
Beats the shit out of building!
Don't know if any of this is helpful, but there you have it. :>)

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 243 hrs
Luana, IA.

On Apr 9, 2012, at 8:00 PM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Bob for your input. Seems to validate what Lynn was saying.

Glad you got your plane sold, but sorry we will not see you in a Q in the future. Maybe we will still see you at some fly-ins?

Now just waiting for Kevin to chime in. He has a lot of time in his tri-Q200 that has virtually no positive incidence on the canard relative to the wing. Kevin? Care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Bob Clark <kr2flyer1986@...> wrote:

My tri-q200 with the 3 degrees up on the waddlow canard worked perfectly. It would fly great with no reflexor required. I only required reflexor to adjust for load.
N817rc now resides in Texas with the new owner.
Bob Clark
Ankeny,Iowa
Soon to reside in Florida!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:02 AM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor. Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it√¢‚Ǩ‚`¢s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn√¢‚Ǩ‚`¢t get airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was √¢‚Ǩ≈"wheelbarrowing√¢‚Ǩ¬ù down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links







Mick Davies <mickdavies1967@...>
 

All,
I haven't yet fitted the wheel pants to my Tri Q200. What difference does it make to speed/economy/trim?
Mick

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Boddicker
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Progress update

Jay,
Mine is very touchy. If you have the reflexor all the way up on TO it will become nose high very quickly upon rotation. I fly with some reflexor up all the time, with some down elevator. If I trim the elevator in flush I need to adjust the reflexor to compensate for that. I very rarely us the elevator trim. It just free wheels all the time. Only use it for a gust lock on the ground. With the elevator free wheeling, I use the reflexor to trim for level flight.
I do not rotate on TO before 80MPH, as it will just slow me down with the elevator acting as an air brake. I have to hold forward stick until I get enough lift on the elevator to counteract the sparrow strainers. If I did not do this the elevator would be fully deployed by the sparrow strainers. I have never tried to just let the elevators and sparrow strainers find there own equilibrium. Figured it would take up too much runway. All the above is with just fuel and pilot. Adding weight changes the whole ball game. That is why there is a flight test period in Phase 1.
Rotate at 80.
Climb at 100
Cruise at 140 @ 2400RPM
Aprox 5 GPH
Beats the shit out of building!
Don't know if any of this is helpful, but there you have it. :>)

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 243 hrs
Luana, IA.



On Apr 9, 2012, at 8:00 PM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Bob for your input. Seems to validate what Lynn was saying.

Glad you got your plane sold, but sorry we will not see you in a Q in the future. Maybe we will still see you at some fly-ins?

Now just waiting for Kevin to chime in. He has a lot of time in his tri-Q200 that has virtually no positive incidence on the canard relative to the wing. Kevin? Care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Bob Clark <kr2flyer1986@...> wrote:

My tri-q200 with the 3 degrees up on the waddlow canard worked perfectly. It would fly great with no reflexor required. I only required reflexor to adjust for load.
N817rc now resides in Texas with the new owner.
Bob Clark
Ankeny,Iowa
Soon to reside in Florida!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:02 AM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor. Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it√¢‚Ǩ‚Ã`¢s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn√¢‚Ǩ‚Ã`¢t get airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was √¢‚Ǩ≈"wheelbarrowing√¢‚Ǩ¬ù down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links








------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links










------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Kevin Boddicker
 

Mick,
Mine picked up 10MPH. That is with the Earnest Martin wheel pants. No noticeable difference on trim.

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 243 hrs
Luana, IA.

On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Mick Davies wrote:

All,
I haven't yet fitted the wheel pants to my Tri Q200. What difference does it
make to speed/economy/trim?
Mick

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Boddicker
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Progress update

Jay,
Mine is very touchy. If you have the reflexor all the way up on TO it will
become nose high very quickly upon rotation. I fly with some reflexor up all
the time, with some down elevator. If I trim the elevator in flush I need to
adjust the reflexor to compensate for that. I very rarely us the elevator
trim. It just free wheels all the time. Only use it for a gust lock on the
ground. With the elevator free wheeling, I use the reflexor to trim for
level flight.
I do not rotate on TO before 80MPH, as it will just slow me down with the
elevator acting as an air brake. I have to hold forward stick until I get
enough lift on the elevator to counteract the sparrow strainers. If I did
not do this the elevator would be fully deployed by the sparrow strainers. I
have never tried to just let the elevators and sparrow strainers find there
own equilibrium. Figured it would take up too much runway. All the above is
with just fuel and pilot. Adding weight changes the whole ball game. That is
why there is a flight test period in Phase 1.
Rotate at 80.
Climb at 100
Cruise at 140 @ 2400RPM
Aprox 5 GPH
Beats the shit out of building!
Don't know if any of this is helpful, but there you have it. :>)

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 243 hrs
Luana, IA.

On Apr 9, 2012, at 8:00 PM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Bob for your input. Seems to validate what Lynn was saying.

Glad you got your plane sold, but sorry we will not see you in a Q in the
future. Maybe we will still see you at some fly-ins?

Now just waiting for Kevin to chime in. He has a lot of time in his
tri-Q200 that has virtually no positive incidence on the canard relative
to the wing. Kevin? Care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Bob Clark <kr2flyer1986@...> wrote:

My tri-q200 with the 3 degrees up on the waddlow canard worked
perfectly. It would fly great with no reflexor required. I only required
reflexor to adjust for load.
N817rc now resides in Texas with the new owner.
Bob Clark
Ankeny,Iowa
Soon to reside in Florida!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:02 AM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would
like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I
wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor.
Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but
wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for
increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to
fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have
measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as
I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the
take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers
mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees
(waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing
is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed
above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if
it√¢‚Ǩ‚`¢s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear
fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than
the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn√¢‚Ǩ‚`¢t get
airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was
√¢‚Ǩ≈"wheelbarrowing√¢‚Ǩ¬ù down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor
faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the
Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin"
<mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the
progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole
to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring
tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the
control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing
the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well
and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on
the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now
I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also
post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Martin Skiby
 

They are under Skiby TriQ200 or there are also in the new photos listing on the home page.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <q2pilot@...> wrote:


Hi Martin, I went looking for the pictures you posted on Yahoo but there are 87 directorys of pictures and I don't know which ones are yours...



Great job Jay and Rick!



Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP


________________________________
To: Q-LIST@...
From: mskiby@...
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 22:22:52 +0000
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress update



So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on
the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to
help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this
point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made
the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia
Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower
in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some
work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new
photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane
before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus
far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin


Martin Skiby
 

Absolutely. It flew great for years before the accident.

--- In Q-LIST@..., N142LF <n142lf@...> wrote:

If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mskiby@...> wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Martin Skiby
 

Lots!! Like 10+mph in my experience. Also all the trims will be different and you will see a great increase in economy.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@...> wrote:

All,
I haven't yet fitted the wheel pants to my Tri Q200. What difference does it
make to speed/economy/trim?
Mick


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Boddicker
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Progress update

Jay,
Mine is very touchy. If you have the reflexor all the way up on TO it will
become nose high very quickly upon rotation. I fly with some reflexor up all
the time, with some down elevator. If I trim the elevator in flush I need to
adjust the reflexor to compensate for that. I very rarely us the elevator
trim. It just free wheels all the time. Only use it for a gust lock on the
ground. With the elevator free wheeling, I use the reflexor to trim for
level flight.
I do not rotate on TO before 80MPH, as it will just slow me down with the
elevator acting as an air brake. I have to hold forward stick until I get
enough lift on the elevator to counteract the sparrow strainers. If I did
not do this the elevator would be fully deployed by the sparrow strainers. I
have never tried to just let the elevators and sparrow strainers find there
own equilibrium. Figured it would take up too much runway. All the above is
with just fuel and pilot. Adding weight changes the whole ball game. That is
why there is a flight test period in Phase 1.
Rotate at 80.
Climb at 100
Cruise at 140 @ 2400RPM
Aprox 5 GPH
Beats the shit out of building!
Don't know if any of this is helpful, but there you have it. :>)

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 243 hrs
Luana, IA.



On Apr 9, 2012, at 8:00 PM, jay@... wrote:

Thanks Bob for your input. Seems to validate what Lynn was saying.

Glad you got your plane sold, but sorry we will not see you in a Q in the
future. Maybe we will still see you at some fly-ins?

Now just waiting for Kevin to chime in. He has a lot of time in his
tri-Q200 that has virtually no positive incidence on the canard relative
to the wing. Kevin? Care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Bob Clark <kr2flyer1986@> wrote:

My tri-q200 with the 3 degrees up on the waddlow canard worked
perfectly. It would fly great with no reflexor required. I only required
reflexor to adjust for load.
N817rc now resides in Texas with the new owner.
Bob Clark
Ankeny,Iowa
Soon to reside in Florida!

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:02 AM, jay@ wrote:

Thanks Lynn and Jerry. Definitely some food for thought there. I would
like to get Bob Clark's take. He has about double what Lynn has. I
wonder if he still needs to use relexor when cruising?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., jnmarstall <jnmarstall@> wrote:

My lift-off is around 65-70mph with about 1/4" UP reflexor.
Immediately
have to trim nose down after liftoff. As Lynn, I fly around with UP
reflexor until around 150mph when the reflexor goes neutral. I fly
final (depending upon weight) as low as 75mph (have AOA) and the
reflexor is full UP.
Jerry Marstall

On 4/8/2012 5:29 PM, N142LF wrote:

For my situation, I am pleased with my take-off performance but
wish I
had twice as much incidence. I fly around with up reflexor all the
time and certainly can not experiment with up elevator for
increased
speed as some have reported because I can not trim the aircraft to
fly
level with up elevator.

Regards
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:28 PM, jay@
<mailto:jay%40scheevel.com> wrote:

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have
measured
the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as
I
know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the
take-off
performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners
comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers
mean
that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing,
negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees
(waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing
is
+0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed
above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if
it√¢‚Ǩ‚Ã`¢s a Tri
Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear
fork
to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard
incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than
the
main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn√¢‚Ǩ‚Ã`¢t get
airborne, even at 80
kts, as the aircraft was
√¢‚Ǩ≈"wheelbarrowing√¢‚Ǩ¬ù down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor
faults)
done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the
Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are
happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin"
<mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com>
wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the
progress
on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole
to
replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring
tool
to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the
control
rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing
the
tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at
this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well
and I
made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in
Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on
the
Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now
I
can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I
posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also
post
one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help
thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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


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



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Martin Skiby
 

OK, So I will ring in here again. My original wing had the trailing edge reflexed up from the ailerons out to the tips by about 3/8 or an inch at the tips. Kind of hard to explain, but it was cut on the bottom side of the wing from the aileron to the tip in three locations about 1 inch apart. The trailing edge was then coaxed up at the tip and eased off so it matched the aileron location on that end. This was done because the plane would not keep weight on the tail as a TD. But it worked. When I changed the plane to a Tri I made not changes and found that it worked great for the Tri also. I used the reflexor as trim as well to speed things up. This plane was 225mph as a TD and I could get an honest 200 at a tri. Because I was too quick to cut the wing out when I got it back I did NOT check the incidence on it before I removed. However my father in law built the plane originally so I am 100% certain that it was built at 0' per the plans. This is why I put the new wing back in that location other than about 1/2 a degree to hopefully act like the previous modified wing. If I have issues I will make the same modification to the new wing, however I do not think I will have to as this new wing is a little heaver than the original because of the Wadlow layup. I can take come photo's of the parts of the old wing if anyone wants to see how it was modified. It may help some of you with the issues you are having. Let me know. Again this plane took 3rd place in the CAFE 400 in 1985 and would run over 225 flat out. I have over 300 hours on it as a Tri gear. The wheel pants are our design and worked very well.

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

I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but I have measured the wing/canard angles on six extensively flown Tri-Q's. As far as I know all of the owner/pilots seem to be satisfied with the take-off performance.

I am listing these measurements below and I ask that the owners comment further if they wish. For this listing, positive numbers mean that the canard has higher angle of incidence than the main wing, negative means that the wing is higher incidence than the canard.

Kevin Boddicker N7868B Canard-to-wing -0.2 degrees
Mitch Hargin N311DM Canard-to-wing -0.02 degrees
Lynn French N142LF Canard-to-wing +1.34 degrees
Jerry Marstall N625JM Canard-to-wing +0.82 degrees
Bruce Crain N96BJ Canard-to-wing +1.02 degrees (waddelow&extended LS1)
Bob Clark N817RC Canard-to-wing +3.14 degrees

The spreadsheet from Martin's Tri-Q indicates his Canard-to-wing is +0.40 degrees, so that is within the range of numbers listed above.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel -- Tri-Q, still building

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Mick Davies" <mickdavies1967@> wrote:

I would NOT have the canard at 0 degree incidence if it’s a Tri Q. I had to:

1 put ballast at the rear of the tail
2 got Fast Little Airplanes (FLAPS) to make a larger nose gear fork to raise the nose
3 fit a larger diameter tyre
4 set the refexors to trailing edge up

1 was to shift the c of g rearwards, 2 and 3 to lift the canard incidence up and 4 was to make sure the canard had more lift than the main wing.
Before doing this the plane wouldn’t get airborne, even at 80 kts, as the aircraft was “wheelbarrowing� down the runway.
Mick Davies
Tri Q200 G-BWIZ
Just finishing the flight testing on mine (several minor faults) done 18 hours and 35 landings

From: N142LF
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress update


If it's a TriQ are you sure you want 0 incidence with the Canard?

I'm not sure I know of any that are that way and the owners are happy with them.

LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:22 PM, "Martin" <mailto:mskiby%40bak.rr.com> wrote:

So I have been quiet for a while, but wanted to share the progress on the rebuild of the TriQ. I got an amazing wing from Rick Hole to replace the busted one and Jay Scheevel loaned me the measuring tool to help get it in at 0 degrees with the canard. I have all the control rods now made, both nav lights in the wing and started glassing the tips. I am using the sheared tips and it looks really different at this point. I will need to change the tips on the canard as well and I made the tail match also. Looks like a bat! Anyway, my son is in Virginia Beach at Oceana Naval Station and will be deploying on the Eisenhower in the next few months so my helper is not here. So now I can get some work done...... JK. Anyway it is coming along and I posted some new photos for the group to comment on. I will also post one of the plane before the accident do you can see how she was.

All for now and thanks again to both Jay and Rick for the help thus far. It is great to have a group to call on.

Martin



------------------------------------

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

Yahoo! Groups Links