Q1_Aircraft: New to group

In a message dated 10/19/03 09:12:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. writes:


> I do not like heel brakes.
> If you want the best breaking use BD5 hydraulic wheels and disks,
> setup as 'toe brakes'. I believe one of our members is doing this.

That crazy 'not building it to plans' Q builder is me. I built the rudder
system 'per plans' and after my first test sit promptly removed the pedals and
started over from scratch.

As for the BD-5 brakes being the best, that is yet to be proven in a Quickie,
by me. They work fine in a stock BD-5 and good used/unused units are
available for a very reasonable price. Due to their kind of unusual design (the
disk
is mounted flush to the wheel and the caliper pushes from only one side) they
are not a simple swap.

Since I have built my canard from scratch with Dragonfly MK II style gear
this wasn't a significant factor for me. For the stock setup, with the gear at
the canard tips, going up to 5 inch wheels might be a better solution. You
have many more options for good brakes with the larger wheels.

All that being said, there were several hundred Quickies flown with the stock
tire scrubbers. They weren't the best brakes (Rutan rated them a 3 on a
scale of 1 to 10) but they were light, simple, and effective - if you kept their
limitations in mind. Most of the alleged ground handling problems associated
with the Q's comes from the Q-2's. Maybe the original Quickie builders didn't
complain as much, were better tail dragger pilots than the Q-2 bunch, or just
had a better plane to work with, but for whatever reason many of the alleged
shortcomings of the Q's didn't come to light until there were a good number of
Q-2 compilations.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leon McAtee
Q-1 'super sized'...............Flight time 0 hrs.
Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
i
~~~~(^)~~~~
_____l__ __I_____


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

I have BD5 Brakes on my Sadler Vampire that weighs the same as my Q1.
As Leon said, BD5 brakes are cheap for a hydraulic setup. I only have
$100 in mine.
The holding power is good and the brakes on the mains of my Vampire
are actuated with a single master cylinder on the control stick, It
has nosewheel steering.
The need for good brakes is for engine run-up before takeoff and for
short landing rolls.

It is sad that the ground handling for all of the Q's took so long to
find and make the necessary changes for better safety.

The lack of weight on the tailwheel and it's geometry is easy to fix.

Ryan
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , BD5ER@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/19/03 09:12:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. writes:
>
>
> > I do not like heel brakes.
> > If you want the best breaking use BD5 hydraulic wheels and disks,
> > setup as 'toe brakes'. I believe one of our members is doing this.
>
> That crazy 'not building it to plans' Q builder is me. I built the
rudder
> system 'per plans' and after my first test sit promptly removed the
pedals and
> started over from scratch.
>
> As for the BD-5 brakes being the best, that is yet to be proven in
a Quickie,
> by me. They work fine in a stock BD-5 and good used/unused units
are
> available for a very reasonable price. Due to their kind of
unusual design (the disk
> is mounted flush to the wheel and the caliper pushes from only one
side) they
> are not a simple swap.
>
> Since I have built my canard from scratch with Dragonfly MK II
style gear
> this wasn't a significant factor for me. For the stock setup, with
the gear at
> the canard tips, going up to 5 inch wheels might be a better
solution. You
> have many more options for good brakes with the larger wheels.
>
> All that being said, there were several hundred Quickies flown with
the stock
> tire scrubbers. They weren't the best brakes (Rutan rated them a 3
on a
> scale of 1 to 10) but they were light, simple, and effective - if
you kept their
> limitations in mind. Most of the alleged ground handling problems
associated
> with the Q's comes from the Q-2's. Maybe the original Quickie
builders didn't
> complain as much, were better tail dragger pilots than the Q-2
bunch, or just
> had a better plane to work with, but for whatever reason many of
the alleged
> shortcomings of the Q's didn't come to light until there were a
good number of
> Q-2 compilations.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Leon McAtee
> Q-1 'super sized'...............Flight time 0 hrs.
> Looking for Aeronca C-3 Factory drawings/copies
> i
> ~~~~(^)~~~~
> _____l__ __I_____
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]