Rene,

Thanks for the very valuable input.I was hoping you would chime in.
There is no substitute for experience and flying is the proof.

The two wings in fact may be capable of carrying heavier loads
satisfactorily, no one has disproved it yet. My observation is that
James concluded that the GU was "superior" to the LS1 and I don't
know if that is a true statement or not. Otherwise builders would
have discovered it wasn't worthy a long time ago and forgot about
LS1.

No question it a way for the builder to make his wing and get his
plane into the air. QAC must have not researched very well and DID
NOT KNOW what they were talking about when they decided to install
LS1's on Q200's.

BTW, how do you get a 340 lb passenger in a Q, I would like to know?
Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 LVK- More flying Q200's than anywhere in the
world"


--- In Q-LIST@..., Rene Robertson <q2robertson@y...>
wrote:

Jim,
For educational purposes only and stricly off the record, I'll

admit to the following:

As you know I have a GU and have flown in some of the worst

weather around with absolutely no problems.

I have also flown it at the following weight:
Empty Q2 @ 585 lbs.
Pilot @ 180 lbs
Passenger @ 340 lbs
Luggage @ 20 lbs
Fuel 15 Gals @ 90 lbs
Total Gross = 1215 lbs
I have done this on more than one occasion and done many circuits

at this weight including touch and go's and low approaches. The GU
performed well.

I cannot say that the GU is better than the LS1, but I can say

that a properly built GU will handle the above conditions and all
types of weather with no problem (vg's installed of course)

Rene
Q2 C-FBWV

Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:
OK I'll bite.

"James Postma" wrote:
The broken/breaking spar and unavailability of same is the big

item

more so than the airfoil.

We haven't determined whether my canard failure was a

fluke

or not at this point, ditto for yours. Can't Peter Harris provide
spars now? Or did that not materialize?

So the question becomes, is the GU canard suitable for a
Q200? It works well at 1,100 # in a Q2, but will it work at
1,100/1,200# in a Q

Or a Q with Corvair engine grossed at 1,300 lbs without

folding up like a pretzel? Is there any evidence of people flying
GU's at greater weights than 1100 lbs? Who are they? I personally
know guys that do it in LS1's.

Does the LS-1 produce more lift for the heavier O200 engine?

Probably Not. I fly with Mark Summers who has a GU

with

an 0200 continental and we are about the same in climb.

One more comparison is the LS-1 canard may be more flexible at a
lower frequency than the GU canard. This is bad in that the Q200
guys are breaking their 58" props on bounced landings.

I use a 60/72" Catto prop and have never made

unscheduled

contact with mother earth. Who's broken a prop on a Q200 with a
bounced landing? Who? OK How long has he flown a Q200? One time.
Maybe inadequate flying skills?


This does not happen with the Q2 and 54" props. So why does not

the

Q2 use a longer prop? I'm running 3,800 rpm now with my 54X46

prop

and 80 hp. Can I use a 58" prop or 56" and by what pitch?

The softer LS-1 canard may be easier to land with fewer bounces. I
only have 2 landings in the LS-1 so someone else chip in here.

I've flown both and they appear to be quite similar

except

bugs or rain is not a factor on the LS1.

Don't get me wrong. The Q2/GU is very good for sea level, 1,000
loading and day VFR, no rain i,e, Mohave,CA where it was first

flown

with all those fantastic numbers that were reported and we were
reeled in.

However,I travel long distances in high terrain cross country in

that

nasty kind of weather that can develope enroute and definetly

would

not like to it in a Q2 Revemaster with a GU canard. Damn, now that

I

think about it I don't like doing it in a Q200.......just kidding!

Regards, Jim Patillo

James Postma
The Aircraft Factory and School
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kris Browne" <l_kris_browne@h...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:21 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] LS1 vs GU

...WOW! - we're really 'pushing the envelope' claiming the GU

to

be a

'superior' airfoil! There's some fodder for a major armchair

debate...

my 2 cents - my Q2, which I have been proudly working on, (not

continuously

obviously), since November of 1981 is finally nearing

completion.

It will

fly it's maiden flight with a 'stock', original GU, per plans.

Initially

no

VG's - they will likely follow soon after the initial testing

phase.

I began construction before the LS1 and the Q200 were an

option.

When QAC

initially introduced this package, I thought, "sweet, but I've

already

spent

more money than I can afford - I've already got lots of bang

for

my buck

at

150 MPH and do I really need that extra 100 lbs. of lift?"

Over

all of

these

years I have never waivered or doubted the integrity or flying

qualities

of

the GU. I have flown in a few of the brother's beautiful

Q200's

and have

been left breathless by their awesome ships - however, the

handful of

GU/Revmaster ships I have had the pleasure of riding in have

been 'just as

much fun' for me. Being a professional engineer myself I

admire

the design

accomplishments of the original Q1/Q2 configurations - (which

include

robust

airframes that are easily constructed by patient first

timers).

The Q200

represents a step in performance improvement over it's

predecessor - at

different types of costs that mean different things to

different

builders/pilots.

To make a long story short - I am looking forward with great

exhilaration

to

piloting my very own GU Q2.

Kris




Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Q-LIST" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

---------------------------------



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com