Re: Jim Patillo
Keith Welsh <kfly@...>
HI Cris:toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
So your looking for a Q1? I usually scan over these things and perhaps missed the Q1 thing earlier. Not that much Q1 stuff on the LIST.
My reason for writing is that you will get more informative answers to your questions from the Q1 crowd than the Q2 guys. Mainly because most Q2 fellas have never flown a Q1. And most Q1 fellas have had a ride in a Q2. Therefore your handling questions for the Q1 will most likly get different answers from the Q1 guys. The two Q's are really quite different animals despite looking the same.
Now to ease your pain a bit. The Q1 is slow, performance similar in stall and cruise to a C-150. That kind of plane performance wise, at least with the Onan. It ain't fast on landing, final at 70 and touchdown in the mid 50's, very responsive to control input and very pleasantly responsive to aileron steering on the ground at speeds 20 and above. The rudder is more than enough to execute a very nice slip when needed, it slips just as good as my C-170 proving the rudder is FINE, I get so blown away at these rudder discussions they are so unnecessary, ever wonder why the flyers never complain about the rudder only the builders and dreamers?, and together with the ailerons the directional control is more than adequate in x-winds.
The only control surface with which I would like to see more authority are the ailerons. When in a steep 60+ degree bank I personally would like the plane to roll out a little faster. The learning curve will be more concentrated with the stuff not necessarily associated with with the span cans like learning the tricks of aileron steering, very cool when mastered, the landing configuration as opposed to the flying configuration. Most don't realize the Q1 is in climb configuration when setting on the ground. The configuration from flying to landing flair will take a little getting used to but that will come quickly. On the other hand the Q2 definately benefits from a few upgrades, the Gall and 6 pack, but the Q1 doesn't it's good per plans.
All in all the Q1 is a fine flying machine which doesn't need deviated from the plans. Build it per those plans and you will have a plane to enjoy for many years.
340+ hrs N494K
Flying since May 1989
P.S. I can understand why Jim and others get flamed at rudder and handling questions. Got any idea how many times they have answered them? Where these notions come from is a mystery to me but they sure linger from generation to generation. Just like going from a C-150 to a Super Decathlon there is a learning curve and patients and knowledge is golden.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:55 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo
I want a flying Q1... trying to get the money together now for when
the right opportunity presents itself. That is why so many questions
from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause for troubles,
didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbie questions,
it's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to the extent
he did to educate me but if someone wants to flame me for being
stupid, please email me directly in the future. :)
--- In Q-LIST@..., Q2FLYBOY@... wrote:
> The Q rudder is fine.Plenty of authority in x winds and steering.
> problem is there is not enough weight on the tailwheel to make it
> reflexor takes care of that . It corrects how the parts wher glued
> Dave Carlson
> Q2 Revmaster 400 +hrs never dinged. In garage for sale.