Tuft test video


Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


One Sky Dog
 

Jay.
Interesting. My Dragonfly sparrow strainers are almost 2” below my elevator trailing edge and set to not exceed critical angle of a Clark type airfoil with respect to the bottom of my elevators.

I flew the Tri-Pacer to Copperstate fly in Thursday and camped Thursday and Friday. We got a call for a fly in barbecue at the local to Benson air park 11LZ Whetstone this morning. So we packed up and left before they closed the field for the STOL Drags. Went to Whetstone and had a nice lunch then back home to Benson.

On Saturday, February 19, 2022, 5:37 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Frankenbird Vern
 

 Unload the canard and load the wing. Something to consider. Yes, I know it has been on the Q before. I've seen the photos and
 read the newsletters about the trim surface on the verticle stab.
 
 So maybe the redesign elevator profile is where to look, Jay? We just have to build it and test in flight to see. If that doesn't work out, 
then what about adding the Amzoil racer solution? That is why I asked you for the profiles you have in mind. I am going to build them 
since I have the GU airfoil, being a "clipped wing" Dragonfly/Canard. In my pack of parts there are no elevators..the Canard is new so I 
have to build them in any case...my Canard was NOT flown. My Wing was flown. I have ONE aileron, Starboard side.     

 John Roncz told us one day when the Scaled folks were in Wichita, in our work area at Beech (the few pilots and small group of R&D mechanics in our shop, Department 45, but NO suits or his bosses, Dick nor Burt, were within earshot at the time) the Piaggio would end up taking the Starship to the ropes. The Avanti is a three surface planform, not a pure canard. So is the Amzoil racer, on a smaller scale. Of course I didn't want to hear that, but I also knew John is not an idiot about aerodynamics. Compared to John I am an omeba, not even my usual village idiot line I like to use!  

 Added to the problems on our project was the stupid addition of flaps and the sweeping canard. Rutan owned the patent on the sweeping canard but not one of the RAF/Scaled designs out of Mohave ever used it. Not the 85% scale flight demo Starship that eventually was chopped up and burned by Beech goons either.  Aerodynamically it is a disaster. The sweep design is a mess..the mixing mechanism took all the avionics room away and of course structurally and systems view; it is a nightmare. 

 What could have been a simple belly board design....but nope..Olive Ann insisted all airplanes had to have flaps and propellers ("there will be no JET airplanes on my field as long as I am alive", she said). Nope..to be called a Beechcraft propellers and flaps only! Preferrably her favorite color of blue too!!

  When I attended that meeting (as a very new M.E.) it became obvious, I needed to find another company to work for.  3 months later I was at Boeing Wichita.   

 Anyway.. John was pretty clear about the reasons we were in a loosing battle even though the canard airplane looks sexy. The performance numbers between Piaggio and Starship speak for themselves. Structurally the Starship is a tank..but even if it lost a lot of weight it would still have the overloaded canard drag.     

 This is my plan and I'm gonna stick to it!

Vern


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 6:37 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Tuft test video
 

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Michael Dunning
 

Jay, do you experience any trim changes with power? Hard to tell just how far inboard your sparrow strainers are from the video. I think Dave and Peter have pretty well convinced me to both add them and have them mounted about 2/3 span.
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Mike Dwyer
 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?
Fly Safe,
Mike Dwyer

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Jay Scheevel
 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


David J. Gall
 

Jay,

 

I concur: Eliminate the sparrow strainers (they’re a hack anyway) and, instead, design an elevator that has a small amount of reflex on its trailing edge. That is exactly what John Roncz did on his Long-EZ canard replacement airfoil in the 1980s that is now the standard airfoil for those planes. The elevator “floating angle” should give the needed elevator deflection to make the canard give just the right amount of lift for a slow cruise speed, around 1.3 to 1.4 times stall speed. Rutan spells out this requirement in his Canard Pusher issue … 59(?) … where he discusses all the design requirements for pitch trim stability of canard airplanes. This “fix” could also be applied to the GU canard….

I can’t wait to see your results!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Mike Dwyer
 

For people with flying airplanes, installing a new elevator is impractical.  I wonder how many Q's are actually being built these days.  1 a year?

Jay, your cowl flap is huge.  Is that controlled automatically or manually?  I actually don't have any cowl flap but generally only fly between 60F and 95F.  Still it would be nice to open it for takeoff and climb and close it for cruise.

Fly Safe,  
Mike Dwyer

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 2:59 PM David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:

Jay,

 

I concur: Eliminate the sparrow strainers (they’re a hack anyway) and, instead, design an elevator that has a small amount of reflex on its trailing edge. That is exactly what John Roncz did on his Long-EZ canard replacement airfoil in the 1980s that is now the standard airfoil for those planes. The elevator “floating angle” should give the needed elevator deflection to make the canard give just the right amount of lift for a slow cruise speed, around 1.3 to 1.4 times stall speed. Rutan spells out this requirement in his Canard Pusher issue … 59(?) … where he discusses all the design requirements for pitch trim stability of canard airplanes. This “fix” could also be applied to the GU canard….

I can’t wait to see your results!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Mike,

 

The “cowl” flap is actually the air exit door for the radiator. I have one on each side. They are manual, and I open or close based on water temp gauges in the cockpit.  I completely close them up this time of year when I don’t need them, or when I get to higher altitude where it is cooler. They are effective for decent and landing, since I did not build a belly board on my plane, so I have them deployed on landing. On a really short field, I could close them briefly for takeoff, I guess. Some would say I am already on a really short field 😉

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 1:29 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

For people with flying airplanes, installing a new elevator is impractical.  I wonder how many Q's are actually being built these days.  1 a year?

 

Jay, your cowl flap is huge.  Is that controlled automatically or manually?  I actually don't have any cowl flap but generally only fly between 60F and 95F.  Still it would be nice to open it for takeoff and climb and close it for cruise.

 

Fly Safe,  

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 2:59 PM David J. Gall <David@...> wrote:

Jay,

 

I concur: Eliminate the sparrow strainers (they’re a hack anyway) and, instead, design an elevator that has a small amount of reflex on its trailing edge. That is exactly what John Roncz did on his Long-EZ canard replacement airfoil in the 1980s that is now the standard airfoil for those planes. The elevator “floating angle” should give the needed elevator deflection to make the canard give just the right amount of lift for a slow cruise speed, around 1.3 to 1.4 times stall speed. Rutan spells out this requirement in his Canard Pusher issue … 59(?) … where he discusses all the design requirements for pitch trim stability of canard airplanes. This “fix” could also be applied to the GU canard….

I can’t wait to see your results!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Jay Scheevel
 

Hi David,

 

Always appreciate your input. I will have a look at the issue of Canard Pusher and get refresh my memory. Thanks for the tip.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 1:00 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Jay,

 

I concur: Eliminate the sparrow strainers (they’re a hack anyway) and, instead, design an elevator that has a small amount of reflex on its trailing edge. That is exactly what John Roncz did on his Long-EZ canard replacement airfoil in the 1980s that is now the standard airfoil for those planes. The elevator “floating angle” should give the needed elevator deflection to make the canard give just the right amount of lift for a slow cruise speed, around 1.3 to 1.4 times stall speed. Rutan spells out this requirement in his Canard Pusher issue … 59(?) … where he discusses all the design requirements for pitch trim stability of canard airplanes. This “fix” could also be applied to the GU canard….

I can’t wait to see your results!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Ian Ashdown
 

Hi Mike,

I may that 1/per year for 2022!  If I can figure out how to get my kit to CA.

I plan on incorporating all the latest thinking and some of my own, principally in the area of the fuel system.  Coming from Formula One/IndyCar I struggle with the Aerodynamics of these aircraft.  Everything is upside down!

Ian


Ian Ashdown
 

Hi David,

I will be building new elevators, so I have opportunity to incorporate any new thinking.  I think the Strainers look odd, presumably create drag etc. so I’d be more than happy to get rid of them.  Where could I find details of what you’re proposing?

Are there other aerodynamic things that I should be considering?

Thanks,

Ian


Anthony P
 

That is a very interesting video Jay.  Thanks for posting all of these.

The relative wind for the strainer and the canard seem like they would be quite different due to the effect of the canard on the airflow.
If the strainer isn't acting like an airfoil, maybe a tab would be just as effective.
I guess the strainer was created to provide the necessary torque about the elevator pivots with the least amount of drag.
Seems like placing it higher, lower, or further back would get it into cleaner air.

Placing the strainer close to the root will reduce the radial bearing loads on the mid and outboard elevator bearings.  I guess this is good, but I know you have a beefed up mid bearing.  But, this does introduce a torsion in the elevator about its span.

Has anyone thought and played around with a wicker or Gurney Flap along the full length of the upper trailing edge of the elevator?
This would nicely distribute the downward force along the entire span of the elevator and therefore not put the elevator in torsion.
This could be a bonded piece of sheet metal or a built-up area of flox/dry micro.
Maybe it would create more drag for the same moment as the strainer.



--
Q2 N86KL


Mike Dwyer
 

Ok Ian, the clock has started!

FYI, I built mine in 1.5 years from a box of foam and glue.  I hate to tell you that every mod to it adds 3? months.  Different engine 2+? years.  I had a buddy here that ran a huge Military Ejection seat company.  A smart guy.  I went to check out his Q200 prior to first flight.  He'd modified the elevator controls to "make em better".  I held one elevator in place and he moved the other up and down about an inch.  His face turned white.  So having a guy check your work is generally a good thing!
 
Fly Safe,
Mike Dwyer Q200

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 4:20 PM Ian Ashdown <ian.ashdown@...> wrote:
Hi Mike,

I may that 1/per year for 2022!  If I can figure out how to get my kit to CA.

I plan on incorporating all the latest thinking and some of my own, principally in the area of the fuel system.  Coming from Formula One/IndyCar I struggle with the Aerodynamics of these aircraft.  Everything is upside down!

Ian


Ian Ashdown
 

Hi,

Oh yes! Can I make that 2024!  I’m already planning a different, to some, engine; a Rotax 912is.  But I have most of the details in CAD already.  I don’t think it’ll be a big deal. There is a bit of a challenge with packaging all the extra components, ECU, Radiator etc., and the fuel system needs to change for the engine and for safety.

I’m a composites engineer, currently working for Virgin Orbit, so the systems will probably get a critical look from a few ‘rocket surgeons’!

Ian


Mike Dwyer
 

You might get a kick out of this video if you haven't seen it!  I was a reliability engineer for Military radar systems at the time.  


On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 4:57 PM Ian Ashdown <ian.ashdown@...> wrote:
Hi,

Oh yes! Can I make that 2024!  I’m already planning a different, to some, engine; a Rotax 912is.  But I have most of the details in CAD already.  I don’t think it’ll be a big deal. There is a bit of a challenge with packaging all the extra components, ECU, Radiator etc., and the fuel system needs to change for the engine and for safety.

I’m a composites engineer, currently working for Virgin Orbit, so the systems will probably get a critical look from a few ‘rocket surgeons’!

Ian


Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Michael,

 

Yes, the trim changes with power, but only if you want to stay level 😊.  In any case, I do most of my trim changes in flight using the reflexor, but I do have spring-loaded trim on the elevator also.  I pretty much only use that elevator trim in the pattern to set up my landing speed. You can do this set up in the patter with the reflexor only, but you have to be comfortable with higher angle when flaring.  I did this for a year or so before I added the elevator trim.

 

I am not sure that it makes a lot of difference where you mount the reflexor on the span of the elevator, in terms of its impact on flight. I have it mounted where the plans call for it to be a couple inches out from the fuselage.  The only thing I can think of that might be a consideration is that, based on what  I am seeing from the tufts, the the entire airfoil of the strainer appears to be stalled constantly, so there is probably a lot of tug/drag on the strainer itself, which increases as the square of the airspeed. This force is applied to the mounts and also to the elevator itself. It is probably better to apply this large force closer to the inboard end of the elevator, since that area is the strongest part of the elevator and would only be 6 inches or so from the inboard bushing. 

 

There have a been a couple of guys who have lost the strainer in flight, so I beefed up the number of plies on the plywood mounting arms so as to avoid that happening to me. Now that I see the fact that it is stalled, maximizing the drag force at all phases of flight, I am happy that I did that reinforcement, and I would highly recommend doing that.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Dunning
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:09 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Jay, do you experience any trim changes with power? Hard to tell just how far inboard your sparrow strainers are from the video. I think Dave and Peter have pretty well convinced me to both add them and have them mounted about 2/3 span.
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


David J. Gall
 

Jay,

You’re too kind <blush>.

Start with CP59 page 5, titled “The Bungee Elevator Trim System.” This talks about elevator shape and trim speed. Then read CP43 page 1 to put the CP59 comments in context. CP47 page 8 gives info on correct vs. incorrect elevator trailing edge shape. Also see CP 34 page 5 and CP 35 pp. 2-5. See also CP 20 page 3 for some counter-intuitive comments about elevator chord.

 

You must have the full scanned/photocopied versions of these CPs for them to make sense because of the charts and graphs; the text-only versions available from some online repositories are not adequate for full understanding of what’s being said.

 

If you don’t have the actual newsletters or the TERF CD, here’s one repo: http://v2.ez.org/canard.htm

 

Happy researching,

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:38 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Hi David,

 

Always appreciate your input. I will have a look at the issue of Canard Pusher and get refresh my memory. Thanks for the tip.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 1:00 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Jay,

 

I concur: Eliminate the sparrow strainers (they’re a hack anyway) and, instead, design an elevator that has a small amount of reflex on its trailing edge. That is exactly what John Roncz did on his Long-EZ canard replacement airfoil in the 1980s that is now the standard airfoil for those planes. The elevator “floating angle” should give the needed elevator deflection to make the canard give just the right amount of lift for a slow cruise speed, around 1.3 to 1.4 times stall speed. Rutan spells out this requirement in his Canard Pusher issue … 59(?) … where he discusses all the design requirements for pitch trim stability of canard airplanes. This “fix” could also be applied to the GU canard….

I can’t wait to see your results!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks so much, David. I will read those carefully and compare with what I have been working on.  Much appreciated.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 5:57 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Jay,

You’re too kind <blush>.

Start with CP59 page 5, titled “The Bungee Elevator Trim System.” This talks about elevator shape and trim speed. Then read CP43 page 1 to put the CP59 comments in context. CP47 page 8 gives info on correct vs. incorrect elevator trailing edge shape. Also see CP 34 page 5 and CP 35 pp. 2-5. See also CP 20 page 3 for some counter-intuitive comments about elevator chord.

 

You must have the full scanned/photocopied versions of these CPs for them to make sense because of the charts and graphs; the text-only versions available from some online repositories are not adequate for full understanding of what’s being said.

 

If you don’t have the actual newsletters or the TERF CD, here’s one repo: http://v2.ez.org/canard.htm

 

Happy researching,

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:38 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Hi David,

 

Always appreciate your input. I will have a look at the issue of Canard Pusher and get refresh my memory. Thanks for the tip.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of David J. Gall
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 1:00 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Jay,

 

I concur: Eliminate the sparrow strainers (they’re a hack anyway) and, instead, design an elevator that has a small amount of reflex on its trailing edge. That is exactly what John Roncz did on his Long-EZ canard replacement airfoil in the 1980s that is now the standard airfoil for those planes. The elevator “floating angle” should give the needed elevator deflection to make the canard give just the right amount of lift for a slow cruise speed, around 1.3 to 1.4 times stall speed. Rutan spells out this requirement in his Canard Pusher issue … 59(?) … where he discusses all the design requirements for pitch trim stability of canard airplanes. This “fix” could also be applied to the GU canard….

I can’t wait to see your results!

 

 

David J. Gall

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:36 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Good point Mike. That was Charlie’s suggestion also, based on his experience from his dragonfly.   I have a redesigned elevator on the drawing board that I have discussed before on this forum that is neutral in trail, so would not require the strainer. Sometime when I get the motivation, I will build a new set of elevators using this design and flight test them.

 

The LS-1 airfoil was never designed to have an articulated control surface.  I think the use on the Q200 was a bit of a hack, so required the sparrow strainer to correct the unintended consequences. The LS-1 is still the primary airfoil used on wind turbines, since it is very resistant to degraded performance caused by surface contamination, but those blades are one piece, so it is the perfect choice.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tuft test video

 

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?

Fly Safe,

Mike Dwyer

 

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

 

 

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay


Terrence ONeill
 

Jay,

Back when I had the Dragonfly, I removed the sparrow strainers and changed part of the elevator into an anti-servo tab, and that worked nicely.  
Sorry I don’t have any pics now… but maybe an ancient Kitplanes article I did back then would show the details.
Next time back in IL I look to see if I have anything.

Terry


On Feb 20, 2022, at 12:27 PM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:

Great video Jay.  Agreed, looks like a drag point to me also.  Strainer looks to be in turbulent air.  Maybe a smaller strainer mounted in the air below would be better?
Fly Safe,
Mike Dwyer

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

I put the camera back on today and added some yarn tufts to the side of he fuselage, the canard root strake, the elevator and the sparrow strainer.  The video goes from runup through take off, then a pass at 1000 AGL along the runway and normal cruise with a couple of slow climbs. The tufts seem to lay down nicely with my contours on the strakes, which makes me happy, but the tufts on the sparrow strainer show that it is perpetually stalled. This is shown by the tufts from the top of the strainer wrapping around to the bottom of the strainer and occurs  at any airspeed above 80 mph. Alhtough the sparrow strainer works nicely to push down against the up-pushing of the undercamber on the elevator, this is a huge drag point on the airplane, and I am sure it limits the high speed performance significantly. There has to be a better way to do this …….

 

https://youtu.be/N-Gnd_CSywA

 

Cheers,

Jay