Panel Mounted Throttle Quadrant 4-Place BH

[Archer39J]

In researching panels I notice nearly everyone keeps the panel located push-pull controls. I'm more a fan of the throttle quadrant style and would like to explore mounting a central quadrant under the panel in my BH. I found the thread below where this was discussed and aside from reducing leg space it was mentioned this could also cause interference with the flap controls, as I understand I would probably like to extend the johnson bar on mine as well.

https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/bearhawk-general-discussion-news/30832-control-cable-and-antenna-input

So it seems I may be out of luck if I want a panel mounted throttle quadrant without:

1. Keeping the existing johnson bar length and accepting higher pull force
2. Modifying the johnson bar to side-step the quadrant, somehow.
3. Moving the quadrant to avoid the johnson bar.
4. Possibly making some sort of center console and mounting the throttle quadrant there.

I don't even know if option 4 would be possible though the cabin seems sufficiently wide for this, at least for me and my SO. Thoughts?

[schu]

Go look here:

http://bearhawkaircraft.com/sorensen-bh/

http://bearhawkaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IMG_6549.jpg

[Archer39J]

Yeah I found that in the thread I mentioned. It looks really nice though, and angling it like that may solve some of the clearance issues mentioned with the extended flap handle. That's a lot of steam gauge to work around in that example, I won't be having that problem so maybe I could push it up a little. I'll have to wait for my kit to get in there and star laying things out and get a really good idea of the space I'm working with.

Side note: has anyone thought of doing a center console? Does the space even allow one?

[Battson]

A centre console would need a total redesign of the flap controls. Big job.

[Bdflies]

I, too, am fond of quadrants... more so since I've included one in my Patrol. Would electric flaps solve the interference issue? It's my impression that substituting a linear actuator wouldn't be too tough.

Bill

[Archer39J]

Yeah electric flaps would certainly do it, though I haven't read anything about folks doing that as of yet. Personally I would require manual flaps for actuation speed. A throttle quadrant and Johnson bar like on the PA-28 I fly now is what I'm after, creature of habit that I am...

[jaredyates]

Ha... I was composing while you posted this reply about Pipers, that's funny!

[jaredyates]

I haven't seen the Sorenson's airplane in person, but that was the one I would recommend researching also. There was an article in Sport Aviation about it, and as I recall there was a little discussion about the quadrant, if not in the technical how-to, at least in the plot of the story. There might also be another photo angle or two. If you have any trouble finding it on the EAA archives, let me know and I'll hunt for a link.

One of the things that I have noticed, and you might notice too, is that sometimes the way everybody else does something is the best way. This is not always true of course... but I saw an interesting quote a few days ago that said "The we don't take the path because it is old; the path is old because it is right."

Naturally, building experimental airplanes we are free to experiment, but in most of my own deviations from the norm, I've been able to look back and wonder if all of the trouble was worth it. Each of those diversions extended the build time and complexity, and at some point I questioned how strong that preference to have the less-common configuration really was. Weight and cost are also factors in these decisions. As I recall, the Sorensons already had the quadrant on hand, and were wanting to find a way to use it.

I wonder if there is a Cessna/Piper thread in your preference... most of my single-engine training was in Cessnas, which mostly use push-pull controls. Did you train more in Pipers?

In any case, keep us posted, you might find a superior solution and set a new trend!

[Archer39J]

Good points. All my training was done in C150/172s but the rest of my flying has been done in our club's Pipers. Having flown both I simply prefer the quadrant design, but I've heard plenty of attempts to quantify a difference. I recall mention on another forum that some formation flying groups don't allow anyone without quadrants, though I can't fathom why that would be...

[Mark Moyle]

I've always liked the overhead throttle quadrant like you see in a twin otter...

[JimParker256]

Yeah, maybe it is the "law of primacy" at work: That which you learn first you learn best...

I learned to fly airplanes in our flying club's Cessna 150/172 and a pair of Grumman Tigers. All had push-pull controls. Then I flew a bunch of time in an Arrow (with a quadrant) for my Commercial rating. At first I liked the quadrant, but grew to dislike it, because accurately leaning the engine accurately was almost impossible If the friction was set properly for the throttle, the mixture would only "jump" around - you couldn't move it smoothly at all.

My first personally owned airplane, a Grumman Traveler (O-320), had been retro-fitted with a vernier mixture control, and I loved it. I could adjust the mixture very precisely. The only "issue" was having to push the center button to actually "push" or "pull" the knob for large changes. It took only a few hours in the plane for that to become automatic...

When I bought the Commander 114 (IO-540), it had a quadrant with the same issue as the Arrow had - very difficult to apply fine corrections to the throttle, prop, and (especially so) the mixture. I learned to live with it, but the only real advantage in my view was the ability to use the "broad hand" approach for a go-around. That's where you spread out your hand and push all three levers forward at the same time. Operating that engine LOP was a PITA, because even tiny movements of the lever would result in fairly large movement of the mixture itself. For some reason, it was also much easier to make small adjustments while enriching the mixture than while leaning (exactly the opposite of what I would have preferred). Fortunately, that engine would run VERY far on the lean side of peak EGT, so I learned to over-lean initially and enrich very carefully to the desired point. But it was the one and only thing on that airplane that I never came to love...

So maybe it is true that we like best whichever system we learned first.

PS – McFarlane now manufactures "Vernier-Assist" push-pull controls that don't require the button-push for large movements – you just push or pull – but which also have the vernier-style "twist for fine adjustment" mechanism. Internally they use a patented "roller-action" mechanism. To me, that would be the ideal compromise for mixture control, and maybe even for the RPM/Prop controls as well. The only potential issue is that the knob extends about 3.5 inches from the panel to accommodate the "roller" mechanism while using the standard 3/8" opening in the panel. But if you're using these "V-A" cables for Throttle, Mixture, and Prop, they would at least be all even with each other...

[Archer39J]

So maybe it is true that we like best whichever system we learned first.

This is true for a lot of things, though I learned with push-pull and now prefer quadrant. Great thing about building is I can do it just the way I like

I've not had that issue with any quadrant I've flown, and I've found I can be as precise as I like with the mixture on the Pipers.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

PS – McFarlane now manufactures "Vernier-Assist" push-pull controls that don't require the button-push for large movements – you just push or pull – but which also have the vernier-style "twist for fine adjustment" mechanism. Internally they use a patented "roller-action" mechanism. To me, that would be the ideal compromise for mixture control, and maybe even for the RPM/Prop controls as well. The only potential issue is that the knob extends about 3.5 inches from the panel to accommodate the "roller" mechanism while using the standard 3/8" opening in the panel. But if you're using these "V-A" cables for Throttle, Mixture, and Prop, they would at least be all even with each other...

Well, that sounds interesting. I have vernier throttle in my Maule (they all come that way). At first, I was annoyed by it, but have figured out how to make it work and don't think about it much. But that control sounds kinda nifty.

My first 100 or so hours was in an Archer, and I, too, really like the feel of the quadrant.

[fairchild]

I was going to say-- maybe overhead like twin otter. Do the trim cables run up there ?

[rv8bldr]

I was going to say-- maybe overhead like twin otter. Do the trim cables run up there ?

Yes they do.

[Battson]

If anyone finds any good Bearhawk examples, it would be cool to post some photos here.