Re: flat plate area


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

I certainly don't disagree but would add that IMO, the largest drag
producers on the Q designs are the wing/fuselage junctions and the
wheelpants. Those items alone, IF they are as bad as I believe, are enough
to make the flat plate area look rather large. Remember, Mike has these
areas perfected (or at least as close as is possible) on his AR5.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave King [mailto:KingDWS@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


At 10:28 PM 9/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
>For years I've had the number 0.4 sq ft for the Q1 stuck in my head (yeh,
I
>know, in my dreams!!). Your query caused me go looking for the source.
0.4 would be nice thats for sure. The lowest one I have heard about was
Mike Arnolds AR5 with a claimed 0.88. The AR5 is slick but its actually
huge compared to a Q1 or even a Q2.

>So far, the first tantalizing tidbit I've found was in the March 1984
issue
>of Homebuilt Aircraft in an article on the Q200 "Quicker Quickie" by Bill
>Cox. Cox came up with 1.35 sqft EFPA for the Q200, "about the same as a
>Cessna's [150] landing gear". But he did not go into the calculation.
Now,
>if he's right, and the Q200 is 1.35, the Quickie must be under...... ;-)
Yup the Q1 should be under that by a bunch. It's smaller (that helps a
little)
it has a square fuse section, teenie, tiny wind up rubber band onan...etc
etc ;-]
If the general opinion was that the prop on the Onan was crap, then I
think
the Q has got be down between 0.85 and 0.95.

Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html

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