Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?


Jon Matcho <jmatcho@...>
 

Ray Johnson wrote:

 

>...I'm building a Q2 with the carbon spars (LS1).

 

The project I am buying has the canard already complete.  If it's the GU canard I plan on rebuilding.  If it's the LS1, do the plans call for carbon or is this a modification?  I've seen the carbon spar available for sale at FLA/Quickheads.

 

Thanks!

 

Jon Matcho

Imminent Q2 builder

 

 


Jon Matcho <jmatcho@...>
 

Nevermind... I RTFP (read the LS1 plans) and see the instructions calling for the carbon spars.

 

However, I do not see anywhere in the LS1 plans where it details the spar material.  Was the LS1 provided as a kit?

 

History lesson would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jon

 


From: Jon Matcho
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:32 AM
To: q-list@...
Subject: Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?
 

Ray Johnson wrote:

 

>...I'm building a Q2 with the carbon spars (LS1).

 

The project I am buying has the canard already complete.  If it's the GU canard I plan on rebuilding.  If it's the LS1, do the plans call for carbon or is this a modification?  I've seen the carbon spar available for sale at FLA/Quickheads.

 

Thanks!

 

Jon Matcho

Imminent Q2 builder

 

 


Paul Buckley
 


Are the ailerons finished?
 
If they are, and the underside of them are concave, then you have an LS1 canard.
If they are flat it is a GU canard.
 
The two canards are completely different structures ......... if you want the LS1 you have to have the spars and you cannot modify the GU.
However, if you plan on building a TriQ then you can dispense with the spars, but this is only for the tricycle gear Q.
It is called the 'Waddelow'  canard, and is an LS1 aerofoil just the same but without the spars because it is not subject to landing loads.
 
Cheers
 
Paul B,  Cheshire, England
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:32 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 

Ray Johnson wrote:

 

>...I'm building a Q2 with the carbon spars (LS1).

 

The project I am buying has the canard already complete.  If it's the GU canard I plan on rebuilding.  If it's the LS1, do the plans call for carbon or is this a modification?  I've seen the carbon spar available for sale at FLA/Quickheads.

 

Thanks!

 

Jon Matcho

Imminent Q2 builder

 

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/8121 - Release Date: 08/29/14


Paul Buckley
 


Yes!
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 5:39 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 

Nevermind... I RTFP (read the LS1 plans) and see the instructions calling for the carbon spars.

 

However, I do not see anywhere in the LS1 plans where it details the spar material.  Was the LS1 provided as a kit?

 

History lesson would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jon

 


From: Jon Matcho
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:32 AM
To: q-list@...
Subject: Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?
 

Ray Johnson wrote:

 

>...I'm building a Q2 with the carbon spars (LS1).

 

The project I am buying has the canard already complete.  If it's the GU canard I plan on rebuilding.  If it's the LS1, do the plans call for carbon or is this a modification?  I've seen the carbon spar available for sale at FLA/Quickheads.

 

Thanks!

 

Jon Matcho

Imminent Q2 builder

 

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/8121 - Release Date: 08/29/14


Sam Hoskins
 

Paul - Elevators, not ailerons.

But of course, you knew that.

Sam

Sent via wireless gizmo.

On Aug 29, 2014 12:21 PM, "'Paul Buckley' paulbuckley@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 



Are the ailerons finished?
 
If they are, and the underside of them are concave, then you have an LS1 canard.
If they are flat it is a GU canard.
 
The two canards are completely different structures ......... if you want the LS1 you have to have the spars and you cannot modify the GU.
However, if you plan on building a TriQ then you can dispense with the spars, but this is only for the tricycle gear Q.
It is called the 'Waddelow'  canard, and is an LS1 aerofoil just the same but without the spars because it is not subject to landing loads.
 
Cheers
 
Paul B,  Cheshire, England
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:32 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 

Ray Johnson wrote:

 

>...I'm building a Q2 with the carbon spars (LS1).

 

The project I am buying has the canard already complete.  If it's the GU canard I plan on rebuilding.  If it's the LS1, do the plans call for carbon or is this a modification?  I've seen the carbon spar available for sale at FLA/Quickheads.

 

Thanks!

 

Jon Matcho

Imminent Q2 builder

 

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/8121 - Release Date: 08/29/14


Paul Buckley
 

Oops! Thanks Sam, just as well someone is on the ball! :-)



Quoting "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>:

Paul - Elevators, not ailerons.

But of course, you knew that.

Sam

Sent via wireless gizmo.
On Aug 29, 2014 12:21 PM, "'Paul Buckley' paulbuckley@... [Q-LIST]" <
Q-LIST@...> wrote:



?
Are the ailerons finished?

If they are, and the underside of them are concave, then you have an LS1
canard.
If they are flat it is a GU canard.

The two canards are completely different structures ......... if you want
the LS1 you have to have the spars and you cannot modify the GU.
However, if you plan on building a TriQ then you can dispense with the
spars, but this is *only* for the tricycle gear Q.
It is called the 'Waddelow' canard, and is an LS1 aerofoil just the same
but without the spars because it is not subject to landing loads.

Cheers

Paul B, Cheshire, England


----- Original Message -----
*From:* Jon Matcho jmatcho@... [Q-LIST]
<jmatcho@...+[Q-LIST]>
*To:* Q-LIST@...
*Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2014 3:32 PM
*Subject:* [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?



Ray Johnson wrote:



...I'm building a Q2 with the carbon spars (LS1).


The project I am buying has the canard already complete. If it's the GU
canard I plan on rebuilding. If it's the LS1, do the plans call for carbon
or is this a modification? I've seen the carbon spar available for sale at
FLA/Quickheads.



Thanks!



Jon Matcho

Imminent Q2 builder





No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/8121 - Release Date: 08/29/14



David J. Gall
 

Paul B.,


Please stop implying that the Waddelow canard is a stock LS-1 canard minus the carbon spars. Further, please stop implying that such a canard would be airworthy, regardless of whether Mark Waddelow had anything to do with it. Someone could die following this "advice."


Mark Waddelow did an engineering analysis of the original GU canard and reported to the Quickie Builders Association that he believed that the GU canard layup schedule was inadequate for the design. He recommended a revised layup schedule. He also designed a 236-inch span canard to replace the 200-inch "factory" unit. He died in an unrelated incident before building (completing) either.


I am not aware that Mark Waddelow ever made mention of the LS-1 canard or the factory LS-1 spars before his untimely death, but I am certain that if he had undertaken an engineering analysis of the LS-1 canard in a Tri-Q he would not have drawn the conclusion you assert. Even just a cursory glance at the layup schedule for the LS-1 canard makes it glaringly evident that the SINGLE spanwise UNI ply (and two +-45° UNI plies) would be totally inadequate for flight loads of a Tri-Q.


Casual inspection of the Tr-Q conversion plans written by Scott Swing and available on Quickheads.com (thanks to Dan Yager) supports that conclusion by revealing that the Tri-Q GU canard conversion calls for no less than 10 spanwise plies of UNI to repair the necessary cut in the GU canard needed to remove the anhedral. Likewise, the Tr-Q conversion plans call for exact duplication of the original factory layup schedule (including retaining the carbon spar) to repair the cut to the LS-1 canard required in order to remove the anhedral.


Any other "reduction" of structure, such as leaving out the spars, would be foolhardy.


Generally, root bending moments are the controlling factor in wing (canard) structural design. The bending moment at the root of the Q2/Q200 canard is approximately the same for flight loads (4g) as it is for ground loads, hence, the structure must be the same regardless of whether or not it is "subject to landing loads."


Perhaps you have confused the Waddelow canard with the Weishaar LS-1 canard which does not, in fact, use the factory-supplied round, tapered carbon spars. If so, then be advised that the Weishaar canard does, indeed, use a carbon spar, just not the round carbon spars from the Quickie factory. The Weishaar LS-1 canard does not "dispense with" the factory carbon spar because the Weishaar LS-1 canard was actually designed before the factory LS-1 canard and it's round carbon spars. The Weishaar canard has a hand-layup rectangular cross-section carbon spar.


David J. Gall


Bruce Crain
 


Paul Buckley
 


David J Gall
 
 I would suggest that you get your 'facts' right and read what I have written and get it into the proper context.
 
I do not offer advice, only suggestions, and I have not implied that the Waddelow canard "is a stock LS-1 canard minus the carbon spars"
This is what I wrote:-
 
The two canards are completely different structures ......... if you want the LS1 you have to have the spars and you cannot modify the GU. (TRUE)
However, if you plan on building a TriQ then you can dispense with the spars, but this is only for the tricycle gear Q. (TRUE)
It is called the 'Waddelow'  canard, and is an LS1 aerofoil just the same but without the spars because it is not subject to landing loads. (TRUE)
 
The next question from any sensible person would be 'How do I build a Waddelow canard?'
 
Furthermore:-
 
Mark Waddelow had nothing to say about the GU canard, and certainly did not make an engineering analysis of it.
 
He certainly did make a reference to the carbon spars in the LS-1 not being required for the Tri-Q, that was the whole thrust of his redesign.
 
He certainly did make an engineering analysis of his sparless design, which is called, not surprisingly, the Waddelow Canard!
 
The Waddelow Canard certainly requires more glass than the original carbon spar LS-1 canard ....who has said it doesn't?
 
The Waddelow canard certainly does not require "10 spanwise plies of UNI to repair the cut which is required in order to remove the anhedral" because it is built without anhedral in the first place!
 
Furthermore, your paragraph six (below) would appear to be, even to the most uninitiated, absolute nonsense.

>Generally, root bending moments are the controlling factor in wing (canard) structural design. The bending moment at the root of the Q2/Q200 canard is approximately the same for flight loads (4g) as it is for ground loads, hence, the structure must be the same regardless of whether or not it is "subject to landing loads." <

What you are saying is that the landing gear (canard) is not subject to any landing loads that are more than flight loads.
Really?
 
 
Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 

Paul B.,


Please stop implying that the Waddelow canard is a stock LS-1 canard minus the carbon spars. Further, please stop implying that such a canard would be airworthy, regardless of whether Mark Waddelow had anything to do with it. Someone could die following this "advice."


Mark Waddelow did an engineering analysis of the original GU canard and reported to the Quickie Builders Association that he believed that the GU canard layup schedule was inadequate for the design. He recommended a revised layup schedule. He also designed a 236-inch span canard to replace the 200-inch "factory" unit. He died in an unrelated incident before building (completing) either.


I am not aware that Mark Waddelow ever made mention of the LS-1 canard or the factory LS-1 spars before his untimely death, but I am certain that if he had undertaken an engineering analysis of the LS-1 canard in a Tri-Q he would not have drawn the conclusion you assert. Even just a cursory glance at the layup schedule for the LS-1 canard makes it glaringly evident that the SINGLE spanwise UNI ply (and two +-45° UNI plies) would be totally inadequate for flight loads of a Tri-Q.


Casual inspection of the Tr-Q conversion plans written by Scott Swing and available on Quickheads.com (thanks to Dan Yager) supports that conclusion by revealing that the Tri-Q GU canard conversion calls for no less than 10 spanwise plies of UNI to repair the necessary cut in the GU canard needed to remove the anhedral. Likewise, the Tr-Q conversion plans call for exact duplication of the original factory layup schedule (including retaining the carbon spar) to repair the cut to the LS-1 canard required in order to remove the anhedral.


Any other "reduction" of structure, such as leaving out the spars, would be foolhardy.


Generally, root bending moments are the controlling factor in wing (canard) structural design. The bending moment at the root of the Q2/Q200 canard is approximately the same for flight loads (4g) as it is for ground loads, hence, the structure must be the same regardless of whether or not it is "subject to landing loads."


Perhaps you have confused the Waddelow canard with the Weishaar LS-1 canard which does not, in fact, use the factory-supplied round, tapered carbon spars. If so, then be advised that the Weishaar canard does, indeed, use a carbon spar, just not the round carbon spars from the Quickie factory. The Weishaar LS-1 canard does not "dispense with" the factory carbon spar because the Weishaar LS-1 canard was actually designed before the factory LS-1 canard and it's round carbon spars. The Weishaar canard has a hand-layup rectangular cross-section carbon spar.


David J. Gall

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/8132 - Release Date: 08/31/14


David J. Gall
 

"You may have misunderstood Paul."


Exactly my point, Bruce. I believe that anyone, especially someone not already familiar with these airplanes, could have misunderstood what Paul wrote, the way he wrote it. Hence my use of the word "imply" as in "please stop implying...."


So, to set the record straight, I am not implying but am flatly stating as fact that the layup schedule for the QAC LS-1 canard wing skins is not adequate for either flight or landing loads if said canard is built without the factory-supplied round, tapered carbon spar or an equivalent substitute structure. Further, the Waddelow canard structure is an engineered structure that is much more than "just" the omission of the round, tapered spar from the otherwise "stock" construction of a QAC LS-1 canard.




Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

"or an equivalent substitute structure"

Has such a substitute been established?  I interested in such a thing.

Dave


David J. Gall
 

Paul,


You're right, I'm not capable of reading the three sentences you wrote on the topic of LS-1 vs. GU canard without coming to wrong conclusions and inferring that you were, in context, defining what constitutes a "Waddelow canard." I'm positive that your intent was different, but what I read  from your words on the page was apparently not what you meant to say by those words.


That is my point exactly. Anyone not familiar with the topic might have misread the way I did, and if they acted on that misreading, they would have an unsafe airplane. Hence my post -- I'm trying to raise a flag of caution for anyone else who might misread your words the way I misread them. I know that you know the difference, but I don't know that Joey New-Guy has that historical context. So, again, I ask you to be more careful in your choice of words and phrasing so as not to imply something you did not intend to say.


As for Mr. Waddelow's canard design, as I tried to say previously, I am not familiar with it (I've never seen the drawings and documentation) but I have seen the Weishaar canard drawings and documentation. This is not to deny the existence of the Waddelow canard or to demean its quality of engineering, only to declare that I, David J. Gall, have no first-hand knowledge of it (although I have known of it for a long time). Further, I mis-spoke in my previous post when referring to Mr. Waddelow's submissions to Q-Talk, in that the articles I was referring to were, in fact, regarding the main wing structure and not the GU canard structure. So now I have to say that I know nothing of Mr. Waddelow's canard, other than that it is, apparently, an available option. At no time did I refer to the amount of glass or carbon required to build a Waddelow canard -- I am sorry if you suffered a misreading of my post such as I suffered with yours.


My comment about 10 span-wise plies of UNI to repair the cut was made with specific reference to the conversion of an original GU canard per the Tri-Q construction plans posted on Quickheads.com under "Tri-Q Plans" and was not a reference to the Waddelow canard.


As to my paragraph six on root bending moments vs. landing gear loads: If you think my generalized analysis of root bending loads is faulty then I suggest you consult with another aerospace engineer. I will refund my fee in full.


David J. Gall


Jon Matcho <jmatcho@...>
 

They're for sale via Quickheads.com:  http://tinyurl.com/blywllx

 

I would like to know the detail specs also as there are a number of composite shops producing carbon tube lengths of various strengths.

 

Jon Matcho

 


From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?
 
 

"or an equivalent substitute structure"

Has such a substitute been established?  I interested in such a thing.

Dave


Paul Spackman
 

Kimbull McAndrew from Canada built a canard for his Q-200 which flew with a O-235.  If I recall correctly he said that he used the DF layup with CF incorporated but I cannot recall if it was a LS1 design for sure.  Maybe someone knows more about that canard.


Jon Matcho <jmatcho@...>
 

Several choices here:  http://www.rockwestcomposites.com/browse/round-carbon-fiber-tubing

 

Some very wrong, but any acceptable? 

 

Jon

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 

 

"or an equivalent substitute structure"

 

Has such a substitute been established?  I interested in such a thing.

 

Dave

 


Jon Matcho <jmatcho@...>
 

I suggested looking at www.rockwestcomposites.com as a source for the LS1 carbon spar.  I have since spoken with Richard Kaczmarek of Fast Little Airplanes and found that he had attempted to do the same, but their cost to him was more than he is offering now.  My take is that the spars from Fast Little Airplanes meet or exceed the specifications of the original LS1 spar. 

 

These spars are available today, just browse to www.quickheads.com and click 'Kit Hardware'.

 

Jon Matcho

Former Cozy Mark IV builder



Mike Perry
 

Has anyone thought of designing a spar that a home-builder could make for him/herself?  Perhaps an "I-beam" or box of carbon fiber?

Mike

On 9/3/2014 10:02 AM, Jon Matcho jmatcho@... [Q-LIST] wrote:
 

I suggested looking at www.rockwestcomposites.com as a source for the LS1 carbon spar.  I have since spoken with Richard Kaczmarek of Fast Little Airplanes and found that he had attempted to do the same, but their cost to him was more than he is offering now.  My take is that the spars from Fast Little Airplanes meet or exceed the specifications of the original LS1 spar. 

 

These spars are available today, just browse to www.quickheads.com and click 'Kit Hardware'.

 

Jon Matcho

Former Cozy Mark IV builder





JMasal@...
 


Has anyone thought of designing a spar
Why don't you design one??? You seem not to have a concern for our legal system.

j.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Perry dmperry1012@... [Q-LIST]
To: Q-LIST
Sent: Wed, Sep 3, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 
Has anyone thought of designing a spar that a home-builder could make for him/herself?  Perhaps an "I-beam" or box of carbon fiber?

Mike

On 9/3/2014 10:02 AM, Jon Matcho jmatcho@... [Q-LIST] wrote:
 
I suggested looking at www.rockwestcomposites.com as a source for the LS1 carbon spar.  I have since spoken with Richard Kaczmarek of Fast Little Airplanes and found that he had attempted to do the same, but their cost to him was more than he is offering now.  My take is that the spars from Fast Little Airplanes meet or exceed the specifications of the original LS1 spar. 
 
These spars are available today, just browse to www.quickheads.com and click 'Kit Hardware'.
 
Jon Matcho
Former Cozy Mark IV builder




Mike Perry
 

Not sure what I did to deserve that one.  I have heard it is very hard to sue the builder or pilot of an Experimental -- which doesn't mean the lawyers don't try.

I admit to my ignorance of the engineering involved in designing a replacement spar, but I'm still wondering. 

Mike

On 9/3/2014 3:49 PM, JMasal@... [Q-LIST] wrote:
 
Has anyone thought of designing a spar
Why don't you design one??? You seem not to have a concern for our legal system.

j.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Perry dmperry1012@... [Q-LIST]
To: Q-LIST
Sent: Wed, Sep 3, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

 
Has anyone thought of designing a spar that a home-builder could make for him/herself?  Perhaps an "I-beam" or box of carbon fiber?

Mike

On 9/3/2014 10:02 AM, Jon Matcho jmatcho@... [Q-LIST] wrote:
 
I suggested looking at www.rockwestcomposites.com as a source for the LS1 carbon spar.  I have since spoken with Richard Kaczmarek of Fast Little Airplanes and found that he had attempted to do the same, but their cost to him was more than he is offering now.  My take is that the spars from Fast Little Airplanes meet or exceed the specifications of the original LS1 spar. 
 
These spars are available today, just browse to www.quickheads.com and click 'Kit Hardware'.
 
Jon Matcho
Former Cozy Mark IV builder







Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

"I have heard it is very hard to sue the builder or pilot of an Experimental -- which doesn't mean the lawyers don't try."

There's a nice article on that topic on page 62 of the October Kitplanes mag.  FYI...

Dave