1. Messages
  2. Q2 Prototypes

Re: Q2 Prototypes

Brad Baerg
 

I went with both T tail and reflexer. After testing I kept the t tail and made the reflexer into aileron trim , worked very well.

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: April 15, 2021 9:03 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 Prototypes

 

Hi Mike,

 

I think the T tail has pretty much gone the way of the dodo bird. For good reason. The reflexor is what is usually used or just the elevator trimwheel style trim. 

 

Here is a paper that was put together by one of the former Quickie Regional Dealers (Mike Huffman) back in the 80’s. He was not from Missouri, but his attitude was the same as the “Show me” state’s. He personally tested the T-tail and the new LS1 Canard (on the factory demonstrator) before he would endorse them. He endorsed the LS1, but not the T-tail.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Steinsland
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 9:57 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io Group Moderators <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 Prototypes

 

So it seems to me you go with the T tail or the reflector.

Is that correct?

 

On Thu., Apr. 15, 2021, 7:54 a.m. Mike Shuck via groups.io, <mikeshuck2001=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

David, 

 

Very interesting! Thank you so much for posting! It would be interesting to see the stats on how one of these prototypes faired against the other. Historically, aircraft designed with compound curves in appropriate places do "better" than geometric, angled, boxy designs... except... well, then the Thorp T-18 and Wittman Tailwinds and BD-4's began to prove themselves. It would be cool to have a full design analysis of each prototype. 

It would be cool to locate Legare's original Q2 drawings and perform a full CFD analysis on them. <Wishful thinking>.

 

Thanks for posting!

 

Mike

 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:30 AM, Eugen Pilarski

<interbus@...> wrote:

Garry Legare built the boxy one without QAC knowledge or assistance. Then he
showed up at the factory and they decided he had a good idea. Legare kept
worldwide design and distribution rights, QAC got domestic US design and
distribution rights. The boxy one crashed during development for the kit.
The rebuild included the re-design with molded fuselage parts. The split-up
of design rights led to some divergence between the US version and the
version for the rest of the world; ground handling problems led to Legare
designing the T-tail and QAC designing the reflexor, hence some of the
dichotomy between US Q2/200s and the rest of the world's Q2/200s.


-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay
Scheevel
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 5:03 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 Prototypes

The prototype was built up by hand by Gary Legare in Canada, as a sort of
joint venture with QAC in Mojave. Then there was the demonstrator protoype
that was built in Mojave, which I think was N81QA (yellow), then I think
this one was further modified to become the Q-200 prototype (your photo) by
beefing up the firewall and replacing the GU with the LS1 canard. Others on
this list may know more precisely, but I think that is how it went down. All
of the regional dealers build a Q2 from a kit and used them as
demonstrators. Legare had the exclusive rights to market QAC products in
Canada in exchange for his work on the project. 

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Shuck
via groups.io
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 5:31 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Q2 Prototypes

Hi Group,

I am curious how there came to be 2 different Q2 prototypes, the boxy one
and the beautifully sculptered one with the compound curves. Who designed
each one?

Just curious from a historical perspective.

Mike (the airfoil guy)
Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.