"Questionaire?"

[dale gleason]

"Questionaire?     That's its name.....I think I flew for an airline named that long ago....

Three big questions:

What is it?
Will it fly?
Will it be ready for the NATS (this year?)

dale g

[Doug Moon]

Hmmmmm

I think I see some Richard Oliver in there, especially the wide gear....

[Avaiojet]

Could use some graphics. 

[Jim Kraft]

Lookin good Dale; I bet it will be ready for the NATS. Probably have 500 flights on it before then. Looks like you are about to the fun part except for masking. I hate masking. It always takes me two or three times to get it right, and then I am not sure. Very nice looking design.

[bill bischoff]

Hmmmmm

I think I see some Richard Oliver in there, especially the wide gear....

I thought Sen. Larry Craig was the one known for his "wide stance" 

[dale gleason]

The wide gear is easily changeable, the design was engineered to be able to employ different length landing gear struts. Having one longer than the other allowed both wheels to gently touchdown at the same time on landing, a judging aspect that has since been pretty well debunked.

The design for this aeroplane was drawn up on paper about three years ago, an attempt was made to emulate Les Demmet's design, the "Palladin", an effort to distance myself from "lawn dirt" (sic) type designs. An article was included in a District VIII report in Stunt News describing aerodynamic applications utilised in the design. Since that article I've decided against the retractable VGs, maybe later.... I forget the representative who did that, (not retractable VGs, the Stunt News article)........which is a good thing; I wouldn't want to be accused of being a name-dropper! I got the idea from Bob Geiseke, (not the retractable VGs, the unequal length gear struts)... who told me he gambled a possible loss of an appearance point for using one big wheel and one small wheel on one of his "Bears".

Respectfully submitted,
dale g

Note-this text has not been scanned for possible viruses or bs.

[Robertc]

Question # 2  Will it fly?

Don't see how with that very long one bladed prop on it right now.  Where's the spinner?

[proparc]

I immediately thought Rich Oliver "Maverick" type of feel too. I have been looking at these ships for so long, I can just tell this one will fly well. I look at the wing.

[Howard Rush]

Retractable VGs make it easier to paint, but hooking up the lights in them is a bit more trouble.

[Scott Richlen]

Nice looking plane, but how will the pilot see out?  Also wondering about that prop - it doesn't have much of an airfoil.  And single blade?

[proparc]

Those leadouts are WAY too close to the garage door guides. I see definite trouble there. Just joking.

You are aware, that we currently have a thread going about taking ourselves too seriously so, I thought I would chime in with a little lite humor.

[Scott Richlen]

Okay, a serious question: can you tell us some more about the landing gear?  How it's mounted, are they wire or ...?  Pictures?

Thanks!

[Howard Rush]

Nice looking plane, but how will the pilot see out?

Capt. Gleason is instrument rated.

[john e. holliday]

Tell Linda Bob she is doing a fantastic job on this one.   Really it looks different to what I've seen you fly.

[billbyles]

Capt. Gleason is instrument rated.

Even better...he has an ATR.

[dale gleason]

The landing gear is CF and bolted onto plywood plates in the wing with four bolts which encourage forty point landings. 4/40s....   Richard designed this wing, but it isn't his "Maverick" (lawn dart wing) rather his "Mule #4" wing design,  so I guess we could call it "Mule #5". Just fifteen more variants of this wing and we can call the new plane "Boraxo". Dougie would say, "That's awesome!"  The ribs were laser cut by George Hamby. It's a very thick wing, pretty low aspect ratio.

I'm hoping it flies as well as "#4"which doesn't acknowledge that turbulence exists. It doesn't move from where it is until you apply quite a bit of control pressure, then it responds quickly and surely. Back to neutral, and it sits there once again, sorta' like Stonewall Jackson.... I like it. This wing has a lot of wing volume, not to mention wing area, so it glides very well. (Again, "Mule #4" is my reference, I'm just hoping mine will do as well).
 
dg

Caution: This text has been scanned for viruses and bs, and some has been detected.
 
Doc, Linda Bob inspires all my endeavours, thanks!
Milton, I hope you are right.
Scott, I will try to take a picture of the gear. I can't get this gear any longer, but Tower has a similar gear, it's one
piece and you just cut it in two. Part #789

[bill bischoff]

You can't get the gear any longer, but what about the same size or shorter? 

[dale gleason]

Longer or shorter gear is directly related to the width of stance, which has something to do with politicos. I better steer clear of that.... 

Back to that gear, it isn't just mounted flat on the underside of the wing, although it could be; there's a goal here, a target being homed in on....we're trying to get favourable treatment from appearance judges. With that in mind, the plywood plate is recessed, the cavity filled with cabasil/epoxy mix, the gear plunged through a layer of saran wrap or other suitable release agent, then bolted on securely. After the epoxy completes its exothermic task, the gear are removed, saran wrap discarded, and there you have it, a form- fitted- cavity- flush- mounted- carbon fibre-landing gear. (FFCFMCFLG) It is totally fuel-proof and all your friends will marvel, as surely as do mine.  (Don't forget to apply release agent of some sort into the Blind 4/40 nuts, else the gear become permanently attached.)

So far, the kit manufacturers have been kept at bay, but, if the design fares well, doubtless the skies will darken as hoards of "Questionaires" take to the sky, at which time anyone so inclined can go through what I have.

Cheers,
dg

And yes, Crist, there IS an Electric Version, of course.

[Scott Richlen]

Thanks!  It gives the plane a very distinct look.  I'd be nervous about getting the alignment correct, and then if I had it positioned forward or aft correctly.  But it's neat.

[dale gleason]

Mule #4 had some teething problems, solved when the vertical CG was determined. The answer in that case was some heavy wheels. Soooo....with "Questionaire" I lowered the drive train 5/8th in. What a simple sentence to describe a complicated design change! Remember when Convair had to relocate all four engines on the 990? Remember when the Dicks tried to take over? Or was it the 880? By gum, everyone recalls that and moving the engine on "Questionaire" seemed just about as difficult to me. So, hopefully, the motor was moved the right direction, the right amount, and maybe the thrust line will be ok.

That rough "sharkskin" patina of the leading edge graphic is not a flaw. AP judges take note- that's some sandy-like substance added to the basecoat for anti-flow- laminar- air- control.  AFLAC

Well, that pretty well answers any questions pertaining to taking stunt too seriously....it just isn't possible, what with Reynold numbers and all,
dg

[Shultzie]

Retractable VGs make it easier to paint, but hooking up the lights in them is a bit more trouble.

WOW!Lights for flying at night?