I have made a small (1/2A) version of something called "QUICKIE"

It has a canard and main wing -- all with a constant chord across both wings

Canard -- 25.125"
Main wing -- 26.5"

The canard is low and the main wing is shoulder.

I get a wobbley back & forth at slower speeds

Q) Could this be due to the CONSTANT chord?

Q) Could this be overcome by tapering the wing ribs?

marwen1

Rutan's Quickie is actually a tandem wing setup and not really a true canard. Could you tell us if it is a scratch build or a kit? When you say it is wobbley do you mean just left to right (yaw axis) or do get it up, down, roll left and right too? Also since your title to your post mentions glide, is the problem happening only when the power is off?

The constant chord in the wing is not the problem I suspect. More likely would be the center of gravity would be my first guess. Where does it balance in relation to the wings?

How slow?

If your on the verge of a stall, it's possible one wing is stalling while the other is still flying. Do you have any washout in the wings?

No real advice here other than a couple of things to consider.

Darren

I realize that this is not a true canard but for lack of calling it anything else ---

The CG is about 5.3" back of the F1 engine mount former. Overall length of the 1/2A model is about 25.3" -- Firewall to vertical tip of rudder.

As far as the wobbleyness, under low power (gliding) it wants to swing back & forth. Left to right.

marwen1

Daren

nice clip (speed) but the engine is OOG (Out of gas)

No washout

marwen1

Marwen, How much does it weigh?
Wings with less than 4 inches of chord have ridiculously bad Reynolds numbers, so take that into account [if this applies to your tandem winged canard]. The canard won't contribute much to lift like a larger scale canard with good reynolds numbers will. This is why I think that a truly great flying 1/2A sized canard is very hard to pull off while still looking like a sporty sport model and not some dorky looking, glideresque monstrosity
My experience with a 1/2A sized canard showed me that the forward pitch controller has a hard time deciding whether or not it is an elevator or just a speed brake. I tried alot of different things with this plane before I decided to scrape off the canard and turn it into a flying wing......then it flew great.

Make sure the CG is according to the plans or maybe even slightly forward and give that a try. It might solve the problem.

Quickies by design have a small vertical tail with a fairly high aspect ratio. While it works great in the full scale, when you get into 1/2A sizes, the scale effect for such small surfaces raises it's ugly head. If moving the CG forward does not show any improvement then you may try increasing the tail area, especially in chord.

Just over one LB in weight
The Reynolds number on this thing is a JOKE!

Performance: In comparison to a much LARGER version.

I had a CF105 back in the late 80's --- 84" ------- nose to tail -- 60"WS

In order for me to make a turn of 180Ëš --- I think it took up almost a whole football field.

marwen1

Marwen, I'll bet you could build that same plane like it was a stick and tissue micro-electric job, maybe RTF at 1/3 or 1/2 of a pound......and all the handling quirks go away. I think if you build just about anything light enough, you can make it work. Dick Sarpolus published a C/L canard in .35 size that flew well by all accounts. It wasn't a bad looking plane, either.
I wonder if he ever tried to build a 1/2A version?

Shucks --- all in all -- this thing could easily be a full blown glider.

I put a .049 on it with only the small tank. It runs out really fast. --CLIMB baby!

Then let her sniff around for some thermals LOL

marwen1

Without seeing it it could be due to any number of issues. And none of them are related to the constant chord of the wing.

For starters do you have the anhedral and forewing mounted landing gear as per the original or is that forewing flat?

How much dihedral does it have in the rear wing?

What are you using for control surfaces? I'm thinking that if your "elevators" are flaps on the forewing then increasing the camber and angle of attach by deflecting them down may be part of the problem. Not that you can do much about that.

Got pictures? What am I saying... Of COURSE you got some pics. Flash 'em up and let's see what this deamon of the netherworlds looks like.

RCM published a Quickie in half A form once upon a time. Cute li'l bugger but it always seemed a little too flimsy for my tastes. Darn narrow chords. Today might be a better time to try something like this with CF in it.

Does this look like yours marwen1?

Robert

How much weight would you guess that thing can lug around with grace, agility and pizzazz?
I would love to have anyone show me a truly outstanding flying 1/2A canard that isn't some "gollywock" looking creation. I'm talking about a flying machine that is worth the time it took to build.
BTW, the plane in that picture is a "looker" IMO. But unless it is really light, I'll bet it is all show and no go.

As an SWR style that isn't intended to slow down much I'll bet it would be a winner. But yeah, for small field slow flying their just isn't enough wing area to airplane volume to easily ensure a good light wingloading that is needed for slower flying and gentle stalls.

Hah! Bruce. Ya grab me dude! LOL

The article in RCM is exaxctly tyhe one brought to attention by the cropped page from RCM.

Nope you are 100% RIGHT ON. This thing is S-L-O-W ! .049 I don't care which one you have -- it's still a small engine

This was RCM 7/81

I'm still bangin' out FULL SIZE PLANS with that old ENCAD PRINTER that I bought back about 2002 -- or so

Specs on it call for 18 oz. Mine came in at 22.25oz ?? !!

Off topic a little.

Q) How can different .049 engines be more or less powerful. Is it not all the same displacement?

marwen1

Take a bag full of those "identical" $6.99 COX engines and inspect them with magnification. There is a very fine line between too loose, too tight and just right. The best thing to do is do your own custom fitting of random parts and build the engine in stages, looking for the best spinning bottom end and the best compression P/L set. After buying $69.99 worth of product engines you might come up with an engine that is worth $70?

All .049s are not the same, even ones that look the same will have much different power outputs. The cylinders, fuel in use, backplates from a Baby Bee or a Black Widow, etc. Same for the rotarys as well.

The Quickie is a cool looking plane, and I have the plans from the magazine. No way I would build that here, the landings would end it's life Q U I C K L Y.

Well, I guess that's why they call this a "hobby"

Having fun with something you like to do.

Building, happens to be one of mine. Flying (for me) is a bonus.

Thanks

marwen1

The guys nailed it. I've played with a lot of reed 049's over the years and fit is everything for them. Then there's running a hotter fuel of course but fit comes first.

Of course there's a huge difference between reed and shaft controled intake. TeeDee's have a far more radical intake timing thanks to the control you get from using the crank timing. Medalions have crank intake but it's just a hole as opposed to the square inlet on the TeeDees. Then there's the cylinders with the one or two bypass flutes.

I believe all this is covered in the Cox Engine FAQ. I'll check it and if a description of the fits needed for best power are not there then I'll write up my own procedure and add it.

And which of the engines are you running on your Quickie?

Actually, althougfh not a rocket ship with a 1/2A, the Estes Astro Blaster (kit version - light that is - not the ARF) flew very well on Black Widow power. And it has decent looks. I also built one with a shortened rear fuse, and an OS .15 with 7-4 pusher prop and backwards modified muffler. Went like a scalded cat, but as 6200' (CO Springs) and the wing loading, launches were puckery and landings were a bit hot.

Canard is sheet balsa at 2 degrees positive, wing is modified SD6060. It is short coupled because their die cutter could only handle up to 18" stock.

I still have one or two kits in my collection. [heathen mode on] I mean to try one as a lekkie [/heathen mode]. They are boring as hell on rocket power unless you use more powerful motors. The box days they do 1000' (implying with their motors) which, I can tell you as a rocket jockey, is total BS.

MJD

MJD, that one is very close to the one I built about 6 versions of. Did you try to do any aerobatics with the rocket canard? The one I built would fly around stable, but as soon as any aerobatics were attempted, that's when it would act like I was second in command.

Yeah, simple A/E aerobatics were no problem, it tracked well and flew predictably. Because of the really short tail moment on most of these designs, you have to lay on the vertical stab area to provide a decent vertical tail volume coefficient. The swept wings help to increase the tail moment and thus increase the effectiveness of the vert stabs. I did aerobatics under rocket boost once I was familiar with them, such as pushing nose down off the launcher to low altitude horizontal with a roll or two then zooming up, or rolling upwards. Not much more than that. Loops are a waste of time and energy under rocket boost, but on glow power they were fine and were not a problem. The big thing of course is that low speed control authority does not exist, so you need to keep the speed up so the control surfaces have something to work with, and fly them jet style versus 3D/sport aero style if ya know what I mean. Other than that, this design flew very well. With the flat plate canard and swept main, I guess it satisfied the requirement that the canard stall first.

A reverse crank hotted up TeeDee on a 5x3 would be cool, with a bladder at the CG. I doubt anyone has done that. My .15 version was stupid, but I flew it many, many times before pulling the engine and tank and turning it into a slope glider. That's when I finally broke it.. But on the .15 the vertical and speed was awesome and it howled around like crazy. However, I was spending far too much on new Fruit-of-the-Looms due to the high wing loading/high altitude hand launches to carry on with it forever. [:'(]

MJD

Hey Bruce:

I'm not quite sure what I have. I think one of them is a Baby Bee. No clue of the other one.

I b ought a couple of .049's about three months ago from the RCU market. The B.Bee was a GOLD fuel tank (I think)
Mine is Black.

Other than that, I have about five hi-compression heads and a couple of rebuilding kits that I got from Larry Maltman here in the Peg!

--------

Been working really hard lately on my FORCE ONE -60"WS

Made the wing tips removeable, put that old ROSSI .61 that was bored out to .81 onto it, Got a temporary glass 14/7 pusher prop for it, and I'm expecting delivery from MORRIS HOBBIES, a 1" offset manifold and a tuned pipe for the .81

Other than that, my daughter & i spent the weekend about an hour north of the Peg in GIMLI, MB to cover the INTERLAKES FLY-IN. I counted over 225 planes on the flight line and well over 3K cars in the parking lot for SUNDAY alone.

What a show these guys are putting on!

INCREDIBLE


Later

marwen1

marshall

Gold fuel tank sounds like a Golden Bee = Babe Bee with larger tank.

Black sounds like a Black Widow, like a Golden Bee but with a bit more oomph.