Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/

chrishazlitt <chrishazlitt@...>

When I post here please forget I bought a DF project, I'm still
wanting a Q too but don't want to build one, I already have
something to work on that way. The Q1 is of interest to me because
of a video I saw that was increadible, but it actually wasn't a Q1,
it had a 583 Rotax in it. I realize that some don't like the thought
of using that particular engine on a Q1 but wow, it flew like a bird
with the high HP.

Another fellow has been in communication with me via email about his
53 HP Super Quickie and he said the same thing, it is as close to
flying like a bird was he has ever felt in an airplane.

Initially, my interest was in the Q2's, or Q200 and I can't say I
wouldn't buy one of those over a single place Quickie if I could
pull enough cash together and one showed up at the right time... I
could easily go that direction instead.

I think the rudder question comes from us know near nothings about
this aircraft due to how tiny the rudder looks in comparision to
other two place aircraft we have either seen or flown. I've got
hours, soloed on my 16th birthday with over 2K hours now in 25
different aircraft, but none in a canard so I suppose my having
bought this DF project and wishing I owned a Quickie of some kind is
foolish for having never flown with someone in one... yet, if it
flies, I don't care, it's beautiful! It can be fast, require skills
I may need to hone up on to fly it but wow, what a beautiful

I am have been working as a senior engineer in telecommunications so
in my own element I am considered very capable but with homebuilts,
being completely new to them I feel somewhat like like a fish out of
water in these groups and too defensive when someone tells me to
stop being redundant with my questions accusing Jim of flamming me
when it appears the folk here just aren't afraid to say what they
think... well... I did that too. I was primed because I had just got
finished barking at Sammy over at the Q200 engine group the night
before (email) for shewing me away from his group in public for my
having included a question about the Jabiru engine in a post on the
O-200 I had made and then the next thing I see when I get up in the
morning is is a post here with comments I wasn't in a mood for
before coffee.

Sometimes I think these things are somehow connected? LOL...

Thanks for your help guys.... I will do more archive searching
bofore clogging the group up with so many newbie questions in the

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Keith Welsh" <kfly@...> wrote:

HI Cris:

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

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.

Keith Welsh
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 -----
From: chrishazlitt
To: Q-LIST@...
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
the right opportunity presents itself. That is why so many
from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause for
didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbie
it's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to the
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
> problem is there is not enough weight on the tailwheel to make
steer. The
> reflexor takes care of that . It corrects how the parts wher
together in
> building.
> Dave Carlson
> Q2 Revmaster 400 +hrs never dinged. In garage for sale.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join to automatically receive all group messages.