Re: Q2 Air foil


Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Eric,

I want to throw in another disclaimer. I have flown in an Q2 with a GU canard. While I have been a passenger in several Q200's, I cannot say I have been PIC in one. My previous comments are based upon what I have heard and read about he two airfoils. I hope some of the other Q-list people with acual experience will respond, perhaps after his weekend.

Again, I have no idea what to offer. I finally found an early price for a Q2 kit. In the October, 1980 newsletter, the special introductory price was $8995 (if you bought all three packages together). That was a conventional gear Q2. There would be some additional costs for the landing gear components of the Tri-Q. I am still looking for LS1 costs.
Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.