Sounds Great Jim, Great food there.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I hope it will work out. I have lots of projects for you guys to comment on and I will offer a free lunch to boot.
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
I know John Harmon. In fact, my wife Jennifer and I had lunch at his place a few months back. John was there that day and did a fly over with his Rocket that rattled the place. Maybe I can con Brad adn Bob into a flight down there soon. Ii will be passsing thru there on the way to Mountain States this year again.
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Martin" <mskiby@> wrote:
I could not agree more Jim, Klaus is running in the 150hp range with the 0200 and that is great for him. I was pulling the same speed out of my Vari-Eze with a Narrow Deck (light) 0320 and ony turning 2800RPM to do it! I would not advocate an 0320 on the Q200, but yes HP is king. This is a great plane and it is extreamly fast for an 0200. The Vari-Eze that I worked on (other than my wife's) had a stock 0200 and the Q200 was faster almost all the time. Not bad for side by side seating. I am excited to get back into the Q200 and just make a clean and nice flying airplane. I was thinking maybe I could buy lunch for the group if you were looking for a flight destination sometime. I am at BFL, but the Bakersfield Muni airport has a great cafe owned by John Harmon. Yes that would be the Harmon Rocket guy. I can't think of anyting more fun as to have a few Q-200 planes parked out in front of his place.
Talk to you soon. The weather is finally looking good here again. Hopefully the FOG will stay away. And I must say that your plane is an inspiraton to the breed. Nice Job!!!
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@> wrote:
Having worked for United Airlines, I learned along time ago............its about horsepower. When our first 747 showed up in 1971, it was about horsepower. You can make a box go supersonic if you put enough HP to it.
We've all known Klaus, Catto and Lippse for a very long time. When I say we've hit a wall, I mean we've hit a wall with 100-120 HP. I think cleaning up our airframes (and thats relatively cheap) will help but not that much. The plennum is a great way to clean up drag and the new style props are another.
I think if you check, Klaus is running above 4,000 RPM when racing as well as having a clean airframe and much more Horsepower.
Over the years we've seen many builders come and go. They've had vision but where are they today. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding! You build it, test it, prove it out and we will come.
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Martin" <mskiby@> wrote:
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.
Have fun all making them what you want them to be.
--- In Q-LIST@..., 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
Quickie Builders Association WEB site
Yahoo! Groups Links