Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Have fun all making them what you want them to be.
--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...> wrote:
There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.
Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.
Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.
Mike N3QP Q200
Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.
No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:
."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/
Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my
$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."
Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...
"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.
It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.
...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
Yahoo! Groups Links