Re: Q2 Air foil

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>


Thanks for the imput regarding the GU airfoil. However, Eric wanted the Q2 in the conventional gear configuration along with 100 hp.


larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:
Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you 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

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


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.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852

Join to automatically receive all group messages.