Kevin,

Are you totally confident you've solved the fuel starvation problem
on your Q. If so what did you do to fix it? Have you "fuel flowed"
the plane with the tail off and the rear of the main fuselage on the
floor. If you haven't done so, you might want to cause that
simulates takeoff attitude.

Have you tied your plane down and ran to full power for a few
minutes so you can see the engine is not stumbling?

Do you have a chase plane, emergency ground crew and flight sylabus
in place for your 40 hour fly off?

When do you plan to get airborne again?

Regards and good luck,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 Asphalt advisor
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@b...>
wrote:

Kevin have you read all the posts about blocked air vents. That

will cause the starvation you had.

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Fortin
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Building philosophy (was Engines)


Mike,

Just make sure what you do engine-wise is good and solid. I have

about 90

seconds (total time) in my Q200 (N275CH) where fuel starvation

let gravity

get the upper hand. I managed to get it around the pattern and

back on the

ground but, let me tell, you the pucker factor is beyond the

peg. These are

fast little birds that don't appreciate off field landings,

fences, trees,

etc.

Kevin Fortin
Nervous and looking forward to trying again.


-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On

Behalf Of

Mike Perry
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 7:06 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Building philosophy (was Engines)

Jim, let me put this a different way:

If you will only use what already has "a gazillion hours of

proven

performance" you will end up with a Cessna-150, a Piper Cherokee

or a

Boeing 747. You won't end up with an experimental aircraft.

When you build an experimental aircraft you can follow standard

practice

and end up with a reasonable and safe aircraft that you can test

in 40

hours and then feel reasonably safe to carry family/friends. Or

you can

try something radically new, in which case 40 hours is only the
beginning. However, none of us can neglect the details that

make us (and

our flying partners) safe as we go along. I think this is MORE

important

for those of us currently building than for you guys who are

thru the test

period.

I wrote my earlier comments partly because I think alternate

engines can be

safe and effective, but mostly because I think ANY change from

standard

practice needs very careful thought, testing and consultation

with

experts. That includes electronic ignition.

I agree that making only one change in a functioning

experimental is

reasonable.

Mike Perry


At 03:32 PM 9/12/2005 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote:

>Mike, I just couldn't let you get away without another

statement on

>this subject.
>
>While I also respect your comments, I deal with reality while

you are

>still in the dreaming stage! My plane flys a lot. Yours

doesn't. In

>fact you don't have a complete and flying Q - do you? You can
>speculate all you want but until you are flying your family and
>friends behind some particular engine, its still speculation on

you

>part. Let's get real here! What other proven engine outperforms

the

>0200 in HP and reliability in a Q - NONE! What is the price for

your

>life? Is it another 3-4K? Thats pretty cheap, wouldn't you say.

Hey

>0200's are just engines and subject to failure as well but LOOK

AT

>THE RECORD!
>
>The e-mails from guys who regualrly fly Q200's make my point
>perfectly and you know what I said is true. I made those

comments for

>new builders who want to fly and not just "dream about it".

I'll say

>it again, experimentation with marginal engines on first

flights is

>dangerous.
>
>So lets clear something else up. I, like several others, have

two

>mods to my engine type that has a "gazillion hours of proven
>performance on it".
>
>Note: I did not do either of those mods until I had a safe

flying

>airplane and they were done at different times for full

evaluation

>purposes.
>
>One is a larger piston 9:4 to 1, no great shakes here. That mod
>offers up no demons as far as I can tell from my own

experiences and

>from others who have done the same conversion.
>
>Two, electronic ignition are no big deal when properly

installed.

>There are thousands of them flying in airplanes. Mike think

about it,

>would you perfer an ignition that has no moving parts and no
>maintenance to one that has to be inspected often and
>and is subject to mechanical failures?
>
>I rest my case on this subject.
>
>Regards,
>Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 "Flying"
>
>
>
>
>Mike Perry <dmperry1012@c...> wrote:
> > I respect Jim's viewpoint, but I would like to offer some

different

> > thoughts. To start with, Jim, you aren't flying an engine

with "a

> > gazillion hours of proven performance"; you have higher

compression

>and electronic ignition.
>
>
>If you think those aren't significant, re-read
> > Terrance O'Neill's story about turning his Dragonfly into a

glider

>by
> > mis-wiring his LSE Plasma ignition. (Kitplanes, Nov. 2000,

p. 77-

>82)
> >
> > I would like to suggest to people considering alternate

engines

>that you
> > read and re-read what is written by the experts. Read what

they

>say about
> > durability, modifications, longevity. (I'm sure I can get

200

>horsepower
> > out of a VW -- with an engine life expectancy measured in
>minutes.) Some
> > of the limits are not obvious if you come from an auto

application

> > background (eg: maximum compression ratios and continuous
>horsepower).
> >
> > Some of these engines are safe ONLY if installed EXACTLY as
> > recommended. For example, you cannot use a prop extension

and you

>must use
> > a light-weight prop with VW, Corvair and Jabiru engines.

All three

>have
> > had broken crankshafts when used with heavier props or prop
>extensions.
> >
> > If you have a "great idea" please check with an expert, such

as

>Steve
> > Bennett for VWs or William Wynne for Corvairs, or find

someone with

>a lot
> > of hours on the same setup. Then ask yourself, "is 40 hours

really

>long
> > enough to feel safe carrying passengers with this setup?" (4
>Corvair
> > engines have broken crankshafts. They averaged 60 hours of

flight

> > time. All had prop extensions.)
> >
> > The best idea: Build and install the engine and accessories
>EXACTLY as
> > recommended by the experts. And that's true whether you

start with

>a
> > "Certified" engine or an auto conversion. Then go fly.
> >
> > Mike Perry
> > (0 hours on Q-200. Lots of hours rebuilding VWs)
> >
> >
> >
> > At 05:04 PM 9/9/2005 +0000, Jim Patillo wrote:
> >
> > >Fella's,
> > >
> > >I hope you take this message the way its intended cause I

realize

>we
> > >are all experimental in this business.
> > >
> > >I don't know much but alls' I know is; "anyone who

willingly puts

> > >his or his family/friends butts on the line to fly with any

engine

> > >except one that is approved for airplane flight with a

gazillion

> > >hours of proven performance may or could be considered

nuts". What

> > >am I missing here? Many have gone before you and with their

lives

> > >proven what works and what doesn't. Why tempt fate anymore

than you

> > >have to? At best anything you install on one of these

planes is in

>a
> > >failure mode the second it is installed. If you fly it long

enough,

> > >it will fail. Why provoke the evil gremlins of flight.
> > >
> > >New guys seriously consider sticking with proven engines.

Trust me,

> > >you will have way to many other things happening during

your first

> > >flights to throw a failed engine into the frey.
> > >
> > >The 0200 may be old and expensive but you can damn near

decapitate

> > >it and it still works. If its got gas, air and spark it

will run.

> > >
> > >A couple of years ago I had a seal fail on one of the push

rod

>tubes
> > >and ran the engine out of oil quickly about 40 miles from my
> > >airport. I started to make a forced landing in the central

valley

>of
> > >California but with minimal RPM and oil pressure limped

back to

>LVK.
> > >When I pulled off the runway, the engine quit. I thought

for sure

> > >it was fried. After cutting the filter apart and finding no

metal,

>I
> > >changed the 15W-50 oil and filter still expecting the

worst. I

> > >started the engine but to my suprise it worked as if

nothing had

> > >happened. I did a compression check and all cylinders were

fine. It

> > >now has several hundred hours since the failure and still

going

> > >strong. Look at the history of the Q200. The engine that

has worked

> > >sucessfully over the years is the 0200.
> > >
> > >The Jabiru 3300 appears to be a good option for this bird

but

> > >there's little docummented performance or longevity numbers

to back

> > >it up at this point. Time will tell.
> > >
> > >You can spend 8-12K for a pumped up modernized 0200 or 11-

12K for

> > >the new Jabiru 6. Which one is for you? The other options

may be

> > >cheaper but how much is your life worth?
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Jim Patillo N46JP Q200 - Technical ground & asphalt advisor
> > >LVK-"More flying Q200's than any place on earth".
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >








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


Yahoo! Groups Links









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





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

-----------

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

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

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

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

of Service.

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

-----------