Topics

Canard mounting

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster. Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going wild (side to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately determine if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar with what it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail which
could be masking my problem.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html



Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Sam, Mike, Larry,

Thanks for the input. Since my plane doesn't exhibit the behavior you guys
are talking about I suspect my templates are not accurate. I will work on
this, get a digital level, and report back.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L Koutz [mailto:koutzl@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:22 AM
To: QBA@...
Subject: Re: Canard mounting


Jon
I'm with Sam on this if the Canard is mounted as you said "canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)" then
the airplane
lifts will not be balanced according to the weight distribution. I had a
plane like that.

The quick solution:
Fly around with full (or nearly full) aft stick. OR
Reflex the ailerons up- a lot! (about 30 degrees to the
streamlined setting)
OR
Add weight aft. How about 8 lbs. on tail stinger and 60 lbs. of gas in
baggage area.

The final solution:
Cut off canard and increase incidence (about 1 1/2 degrees for me)

Now plane flys "normal" with all surfaces flushed in.

I have also flown other Q-type aircraft with this problem.

Quickly looking up this topic in my database I see this problem was also
discussed in several "QuickTalk" articles in the early 80's where the
authors write about changing the canard incidence but do not discuss why
they changed the incidence or the amount or direction and the change. I do
recall an article that did discuss this and his reason for moving canard
incidence up, but I couldn't quickly find it. Jon, if you need more info
write and let me know.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: "QBA (E-mail)" <qba@...>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 10:05 PM
Subject: Canard mounting


Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if the
canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html


Fisher Paul <FisherPaul@...>
 

Jon,
I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster.
Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going wild (side
to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately determine
if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar with what
it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
which
could be masking my problem.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Thanks Paul. I haven't moved the CG way back and tried to pitch buck. May
try that soon. I really wonder if that t-tail is doing something to prevent
pitch buck!

Yes, the Soob is heavier than the VW but not by much. My Q didn't pitch
buck with the Revmaster either.

The best part of this characteristic is that I don't get bored with my
landings!! :-)

Anybody out there have the tools necessary to accurately measure the angle
between the wing and canard? If so, bring them to Ottawa!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher Paul [mailto:FisherPaul@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:49 AM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Jon,
I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same
problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the
nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm
dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a Revmaster.
Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full
down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power
if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior
during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going
wild (side
to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" - 3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately
determine
if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two
methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG
limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar
with what
it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I
don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then
checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much
as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
which
could be masking my problem.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what
would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


L.J. French <LFrench@...>
 

I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could bring them if needed.
Lynn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Thanks Paul. I haven't moved the CG way back and tried to pitch buck. May
try that soon. I really wonder if that t-tail is doing something to
prevent
pitch buck!

Yes, the Soob is heavier than the VW but not by much. My Q didn't pitch
buck with the Revmaster either.

The best part of this characteristic is that I don't get bored with my
landings!! :-)

Anybody out there have the tools necessary to accurately measure the angle
between the wing and canard? If so, bring them to Ottawa!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher Paul [mailto:FisherPaul@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:49 AM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Jon,
I think my canard is mounted slightly "down" as well (same
problem - I don't
have the tools to measure it accurately!). I have to keep the ailerons
reflexed up slightly to keep it straight and level. I've got ~815 hours
now, so I don't see the need to change the incidence of the canard at
this
point. It does pitch buck - depending on the weight and reflexor
setting,
but I suspect it is costing me some speed at the top end (especially at
lighter weights).

I don't know if the different airfoil on your canard might also change
the
characteristics from Larry, Sam or myself. Certainly the T-tail and
reflexor will change things.

Is the Subaru heavier than the Revmaster? More weight on the
nose may have
just made a marginal problem much more noticeable.

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200, N17PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 07:54
To: Q-List
Subject: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting

John,

Sounds like I better explain myself so I don't sound like I'm
dreaming up
some hair brained idea!!

My Q2 has over 400 hours. It flew almost all that time with a
Revmaster.
Now
flying with the Subaru. It flies pretty well. However; it does not
pitch
buck. Rather, it starts downhill (mushes) at 85mph and full
down elevator.
The down elevator stop is greater than the plans (first thing I tried
years
ago). I must be over the numbers at 90mph and a little power
if I hope to
land (otherwise there is no elevator authority). I have tufts on the
elevator (canard) and they exhibit some interesting behavior
during climb.
If I use the elevator to pitch for climb the tufts start going
wild (side
to
side, up, and occasionally FORWARD) when deflected more than 1/4" -
3/8"
(haven't measured it exactly but it isn't much). To avoid this I have
started using my reflexor and t-tail to pitch for climb and keep the
elevator "in-trail". I don't have a VSI so I cannot accurately
determine
if
there is any difference in rate of climb (between the two
methods of pitch
change). I am currently flying at the forward end of the CG
limit but I am
within the limits. My Q1 pitch bucks normally so I am familiar
with what
it
feels like. This problem has never been a big deal but am becoming
more
interested in at least knowing what the problem is even if I
don't fix it.

I made a set of "outside" airfoil templates using the core cutting
templates
(the BL 48.8 template for wing and BL50 for canard). I transferred
the
water line from the template. My new templates match the airfoil
pretty
well. I raised the tail until the main wing was level and then
checked the
canard, it was slightly nose down. I didn't measure how much
as I didn't
have a digital level and couldn't remember how without one (no need to
write
up instructions - I have them, just need to dig them out). The
original
intent of my question was to find out if a Q2 would even fly with a
nose
down canard and if so, would it behave like mine does. Sam, mentions
needing lots of nose up trim. I don't need much but I do have a t-tail
which
could be masking my problem.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:27 PM
To: 'QBA@...'
Subject: RE: Canard mounting


Point of clarification Jon, please. Are you asking what
would happen if
the AOA of the canard was reduced relative to the AOA of the
wing? If so,
by how much?

cheers

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [SMTP:finley@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:05 PM
To: QBA (E-mail)
Subject: Canard mounting

Hi all,

A not so hypothetical question: How would a Q2 act in the air if
the canard
(WL) were mounted nose down relative to the wing (WL)?

Thanks,
Jon Finley
N54JF Quickie - Volkswagen 1835cc
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EA-81 DDT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://63.90.191.136/Finley/finley-subaru.html







To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Lynn,

Yes, please bring them and find me as soon as you get there. Are these
templates for the GU canard? We will plan on measuring all planes that show
up at Ottawa (depending on which canard they have).

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L.J. French [mailto:LFrench@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could bring them if needed.
Lynn

L.J. French <LFrench@...>
 

Unfortunately, my canard template is for the LS-1. If someone could cut
out a female template for the GU, we would have both for comparisons of all
aircraft. Take the hotwire template for cutting the canard at BL48.8 or
therabouts - lay it on a piece of fiberboard with the waterline accurately
lined up with one straight edge of the board and trace the template, cut it
out such that the female portion will accurately rest on the top of the
canard. The digital level would be placed on the straight surface on the top
which should now represent WL.
Does someone else have a better way to quickly provide this reference??

Lynn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Lynn,

Yes, please bring them and find me as soon as you get there. Are these
templates for the GU canard? We will plan on measuring all planes that
show
up at Ottawa (depending on which canard they have).

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L.J. French [mailto:LFrench@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could bring them if
needed.
Lynn




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Lynn,

What you describe is what I have for the GU canard although it's accuracy is
in question. I will double check it per the core cutting templates and
bring with me to Ottawa.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L.J. French [mailto:LFrench@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 1:00 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Unfortunately, my canard template is for the LS-1. If someone
could cut
out a female template for the GU, we would have both for
comparisons of all
aircraft. Take the hotwire template for cutting the canard at BL48.8 or
therabouts - lay it on a piece of fiberboard with the waterline accurately
lined up with one straight edge of the board and trace the
template, cut it
out such that the female portion will accurately rest on the top of the
canard. The digital level would be placed on the straight surface
on the top
which should now represent WL.
Does someone else have a better way to quickly provide this reference??

Lynn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Lynn,

Yes, please bring them and find me as soon as you get there. Are these
templates for the GU canard? We will plan on measuring all planes that
show
up at Ottawa (depending on which canard they have).

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L.J. French [mailto:LFrench@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could bring them if
needed.
Lynn




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


BD5ER@...
 

It seems to me that the actual WL used in the initial jigging of the
aircraft is somewhat irrelevant to the task at hand if I have been following
this correctly. What we need to do is establish the "relative" angle of
incidences between the main and canard. Additionally it would be nice if
there was a quick way of putting a measuring device on the prop flange to
determine its orientation to the canard and BL 0.
The actual angle that the fuselage has while flying, to me at least, is
of secondary concern. A "misalignment" of 3 full inches when the fuselage is
initially jigged up is only about 1.2 degrees and is probably as much as
anyone would have messed up even if they used the split lines for the water
lines. I don't see 1.2 deg making much difference in the drag of the
fuselage or it's interaction with the lift of the wing(s).
This should simplify the measuring process. Wish I had time to attend
Ottawa and help out but I just don't see it happening this year. For sure
next year, and I plan to fly..........in my Q
=======================================

In a message dated 8/9/00 3:09:51 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
panzera@... writes:

<< IMHO, the only way to check one of our airplanes, it to make
templates from the prototype (or one that we know flys well) and
transfer the template locations to the ground. We'd also need a
way to reestablish the waterline on each ship being measured.
Some of us may not have installed a bubble level into the
fueslage at the time of building, and since the initial jigging
of the fueslage is arbitrary at best, one simply can't use hard
points such as the top of the rudder fin, or the forward edge of
the canopy.
>>


"Think outside the box - but fly in the envelope"
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/bd5er/Qpage.html">Q-2 page</A>
Leon McAtee

Pat Panzera <panzera@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley"


Lynn,

What you describe is what I have for the GU canard although
it's accuracy is
in question. I will double check it per the core cutting
templates and
bring with me to Ottawa.
Accuracy is totally in question, and without it, the whole
exercise if for not. The template is of the foam core, and does
not allow for the multiple layers of glass, nor the overlapping
of it.

Then comes the part of aligning a 2 dimensional jig with a 3
dimensional wing. Remember, we have tons of anihedral (sp?) so
any misalignment of the jig from being parallel with the
fueslage's centerline will throw off any measurements.
Additionally, the jig it self must be plumb or you'll get an
inaccurate reading.... and with that, the wing being measured
must be leveled span-wise. And from what point on an existing Q
will you hook or but the tape measure to establish BL48.8?

It's not just a matter of walking up to an airplane and plopping
down a jig with a level on it.

IMHO, the only way to check one of our airplanes, it to make
templates from the prototype (or one that we know flys well) and
transfer the template locations to the ground. We'd also need a
way to reestablish the waterline on each ship being measured.
Some of us may not have installed a bubble level into the
fueslage at the time of building, and since the initial jigging
of the fueslage is arbitrary at best, one simply can't use hard
points such as the top of the rudder fin, or the forward edge of
the canopy.

I'm totally behind the effort, and hope the best for all
involved.

Pat



Unfortunately, my canard template is for the LS-1. If
someone
could cut
out a female template for the GU, we would have both for
comparisons of all
aircraft. Take the hotwire template for cutting the canard at
BL48.8 or
therabouts - lay it on a piece of fiberboard with the
waterline accurately
lined up with one straight edge of the board and trace the
template, cut it
out such that the female portion will accurately rest on the
top of the
canard. The digital level would be placed on the straight
surface
on the top
which should now represent WL.
Does someone else have a better way to quickly provide this
reference??

Lynn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Finley <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


Lynn,

Yes, please bring them and find me as soon as you get
there. Are these
templates for the GU canard? We will plan on measuring all
planes that
show
up at Ottawa (depending on which canard they have).

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: L.J. French [mailto:LFrench@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 9:57 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] RE: Canard mounting


I have the female templates cut out for BL48.8 and a
Super Level
(digital) that seemed to work the best for me. Could
bring them if
needed.
Lynn




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




---------------------------------------------------------------
-----<e|-
Pay only 4.5% commission to sell your home!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7035/12/_/_/_/965846656/
---------------------------------------------------------------
-----|e>-

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html



almedley@...
 

In a message dated 08/09/00 4:09:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
panzera@... writes:

<< Accuracy is totally in question, and without it, the whole exercise if
for not. The template is of the foam core, and does not allow for the
multiple layers of glass, nor the overlapping of it. >>

I was concerned about whether my wing and canard were angled properly. To
check, I used pieces of poster board. I drew lines parallel with the tops of
the boards through the centers of the boards. I used these lines as the
water lines as I traced the 48.8 foam cutout template drawings onto the
boards. I also traced in the slot cores and the elevators/ailerons.

I then cut out the outlines using an exacto knife, thereby producing forms
that I could slide over the wing and canard. Naturally, the heights of the
cutouts were too small because many layers of glass had been added to the
foam. However, the lengths of the cutouts were almost adequate since little
glass had been added to the leading edges and none had been added to the
trailing edges. It was easy to keep the waterlines oriented correctly. When
the tops and bottoms of the forms engaged the airfoils, I would mark the
necessary shape modifications with a pencil. Using a motor tool and a
sanding drum, I would enlarge the openings as required. Eventually, I was
able to slide the forms to the 48.8 positions on the wing and canard.

Since the tops of the forms were parallel with the waterlines, it was easy to
determine if the angles were the same by using a level. I my case, the wing
and canard proved to be at exactly the same angle. This suited me all right,
although some builders believe that the canard should be angled upward
slightly (1 -2 degrees) relative to the wing.

This procedure worked fine for me because I'm building a Tri-Q-200. If
you're working with a tail dragger, you would need to slice the canard form
from the trailing edge to the edge of the form. The form would be slipped on
inside of the wheel pant and then rejoined with duct tape.

Al Medley
almedley@...