Jump to content

lelievre12

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

lelievre12 last won the day on November 17

lelievre12 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About lelievre12

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Real Name (Public)
    Peter Le Lievre
  • Location (Public)
    Sausalito

Project/Build Information

  • Plane
    Undecided/Undeclared

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The reason I ask is that the cabin doors are big and any pressure increase inside will lead to a huge burst load. Even 1/4psi over a 36” x 20” door = 180 lb pressing out. I fly a P210 with a 3.35psi pressure diff and the door locks are super heavy to cope. Given that quite a few canards have had doors fly open in flight I’m going to positively manage cabin pressure to ensure it doesn’t increase at all. Even a slight increase will cause to hiss and this is the door flexing outwards until pressure can escape. Noisy and far from ideal.
  2. I am wondering what folks do regarding letting cabin air back out. I have arranged my inlets just fine but cant see any info in the build about how that air is getting out again! Pics/hints appreciated!
  3. I have a set of them on my SQ2000 project at KVDO if you want to see them up close. Not selling but happy to send details/photos etc. James at Infinity is very responsive so simply email JD@infinityaerospace.com
  4. For those interested in the inside of a Thieliert TAE125 (now Continental CD155) here are some photos of a gearbox removal and clutch check. The engine is out of my SQ2000 project described elsewhere. The TAE125 engine is based on a Mercedes OM640 engine however it is heavily modified with custom aluminium block, custom sump, flywheel and fuel injection. The gearbox exterior looks conventional for a PSRU with the exception of the hydraulic propeller controller which includes an oil pressure pump and ECU controller governor. Propeller flange is a Rotax style 80MM PCD suitable for constant speed MTU propeller. The gearbox is removed via the peripheral M8 hex capscrews and two M5 screws just below the propeller flange. The flywheel is then revealed which is custom Thielert (not Mercedes O640) The flywheel still contains a clutch plate which drives the gearbox. The design is arranged to absorb the power pulses from the high compression Diesel via slippage of the clutch plate. Many Thielert failures have been caused by the plate either slipping (oil or contaminant) or burning. The design differs from other PSRU (eg Rotax) which normally retain a flywheel and rubber power coupling which is used to transmit power. As the engine has no clutch pedal, the clutch plate is permanently retained by a twist locking ring. To remove, the clutch spring must be compressed by inserting 4 specially slotted M8 screws. Once the screws are in, the clutch plate can be rotated anticlockwise and released. The clutch plate and clutch can then be removed and inspected. Once the clutch is out, the flywheel can be seen. Its clear it is NOT standard Mercedes and is a custom lightweight flywheel made by Thielert. Later Continental CD155 models have a dual mass flywheel however these earlier engines have a conventional 'single mass' style. The clutch spring itself is a giant Belleville washer. Not individual springs. Its marked with it KN setting which is important in the correct 'slippage' for the clutch. The clutch plate is conventional Sachs although it is marked with a TAE part number so perhaps the friction material is custom. Looking at the gearbox side it is a standalone PSRU with conventional spline to mate to the clutch plate. From the above dissembly, its clear that Thielert have customised the design of the drivetrain extensively to reduce weight and account for the high torque of their Diesel motor. The PSRU design is unique in many ways and illustrates the difficulty of engineering a PSRU with a high torque engine.
  5. Yee Ha! Discussed here: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/the-what-is-it-game.25244/page-461 Apparently the South African one was not 'genuine' Richter. It was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMT_Bateleur "Actually, this is not a Richter Delta Dart II, but it is merely an empty hull and wing-structure of a plane called "Bateleur" which was built by a man known as A. v. Schoenbeck. It was a case of blatant plagiarism - the plans were obtained and illegaly used in the attempt to establish production in South Africa. In South Africa everything ended in a major case of presumably fraudulent bankruptcy. The single authentic Richter Delta Dart II remains in germany, its whereabouts kept secret." Video of the Bateleur here: Now that design is going to have some serious pitch over on throttle up. Marc Z?
  6. Yup. Hard to argue with any of that. Especially when your example sounds like MCAS! Yikes!! ESP may make things worse not better in the early stages. Thanks for your input here. I guess it comes back to stick and rudder and exactly as you say, flying the airplane. Helmet fire or getting distracted is never an excuse for underspeed in a conventional aircraft with decalage. It therefore makes no sense to require a Phase 1 fix for a canard. Just introduces more complexity that may add to the fire. And resisting the impossible turn is part of the same skill set. Trying to automate this out wont work either. The test card and takeoff briefing simply needs to call out the allowable envelope and assuming its 15 bank, >75KIAS and >1000AGL before a turn to field then the Phase 1 pilot priority is that before all else. Having done so much short field work in my career I should simply trust that I actually can fly the numbers and don't need no machine to help!
  7. The newer Garmin AP have 'ESP' which is a bit like the lane keeper steering in newer cars. It works a bit like a stick pusher when underspeed is detected but at all times the pilot is in 'control' and the AP is 'off'. This from G5 manual: "ESP engages when the aircraft exceeds one or more conditions (pitch, roll, airspeed) beyond the normal flight parameters. Enhanced stability for each condition provides a force to the appropriate control surface to return the aircraft to the normal flight envelope. This is perceived by the pilot as resistance to control movement in the undesired direction when the aircraft approaches a steep attitude or high airspeed. As the aircraft deviates further from the normal attitude and/or airspeed, the force increases (up to an established maximum) to encourage control movement in the direction necessary to return to the normal attitude and/or airspeed range" My thinking is that Garmin ESP would be useful in Phase 1 testing if the test pilot (me) gets a helmet fire whilst distracted by some other 'aspect' of the testing. Underspeed protection can limit any 'premature exploration' of the stall characteristics. As testing progresses and CG envelope found 'safe', ESP can gradually be wound back. Also note that ESP disengages under 200ft AGL so anything below that is up to the pilot. Of course if it all goes to hell and the Garmin goes beserk then there is always the CWS and APoff buttons on the stick.
  8. Thanks Marc, I did read about N2992 and thought the report was invaluable. Not just for the SQ but for all folks Phase 1 testing canards. Making the impossible turn is hard enough let alone with an untested out of limits aft CG based on 'factory' numbers. And as said, there may have been a 'macho' attitude on having achieved a similar turn on a previous engine failure. The demise of N416 was also informative as a door failure, again is something that should never happen yet we see it again and again in the canard community. There are a number of similar Velocity accidents. However the deeper issues regarding specific to the SQ which are specific to this airframe require a detailed Phase 1 as you say. I have a short list of mitigation items in my test plan (which may be some way off) which include: 1. Cabin/seat/restraint strength all being reviewed 2. I am using a certified engine. 3. Testing at Castle (KMER) which is 11,800 feet long of wide concrete runway if that is permitted. Lots of room for taxi / ground effect work. 4. Will set the Garmin GFC to include stability protection below a set test number (80 KIAS initially?) 5. Will do a first principles reset of the CG envelope and start only with forward limits. I agree that the Glassic numbers seem optimistic and arbitrary. 6. Ensure vortilons and stability aids are actually fitted! I note one flying SQ also has aileron fences. etc etc. And of course before the flights I hope to meet you and maybe fly you up for a candid appraisal of progress. Of course others are welcome anytime at KVDO to share experience at anytime!
  9. I ended up pulling the trigger and am the new owner of the SQ2000 built by Joel Conard at Payne Field. Details of his build are at http://www.sq2000.us As Joel works at Boeing, the quality of his work is excellent which overcomes (at least some) of the issues of taking on such a novel design. Also the Infinity retract is a really nice setup which also added to the appeal of this build. For the trip south to CA from WA we mounted the SQ on a flat bed 20' trailer canted up to keep the width roadable for the I5. Video of the 'rig' is here. A LOT of work remaining but I wanted to introduce the project and start to get to know those folks in the community so you can see another project coming along.
  10. Actually I think I found the data online. http://www.canardaviation.com/cozy/chap23b.htm Discusses; 1. Plan View: prop flange square to centerline at BL O" (no P factor correction) and ; 2. Elevation: prop flange center at WL 21.5" (1.5" below top of longerons) with a 2 degree downthrust (aft higher than for'd). 3. Prop flange station = 41-42" aft of firewall. Does that sound right to others?
  11. Does anyone have any drawings or data related to the engine alignment / thrust line for the Cozy IV? Either Cont or Lyc. I am setting this up in CAD and have no idea of the 'standard prop hub location.
  12. Nice looking plane Kevin. I was wondering what the strakes are underneath the wing (behind the vortilons). Normally stall fences are on the top of the wing so there must be something unusual about these?

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information