Date   

Re: Wiring Tail Nav Light

Steve <sham@...>
 

Joe, try using 26 or 28 gauge wire. The light only pulls an about ann amp.
Steve Ham

----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Snow
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Wiring Tail Nav Light


Hi,

I am wiring the electrical systems in a Q200. I have the wires routed to the left and right nav lights. However, the tubing I installed for the vertical stabilizer nav light is too small in diameter for the wire. I have been able to drill a 1/4" hole from the top about 35". I am about 2" above the bed of flox anchoring the vertical stabilizer in the rear fuselage.

Options:

1. Continue down into the flox bed; then drill an access hole through the rear bulkhead (if I can reach it); fish the wires through; flox everything closed. Seems risky trying to hit the 1/4' channel drilled from the top.

2. Drill 1/4 hole through the upper fuselage shell; drill 1/4' hole through side of vertical stabilizer; run the wires; patch the holes; install a fairing over the patched holes using 2-part foam, shaping the faring and covering all with layer of fiberglass. Concern: possible weakening of rear fuselage which might lead to broken rear fuselage.

3. Running the wires down the exterior top centerline of the fuselage and up the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer; micro the wires and cover with a strip of fiberglass along the entire length; cover the evidence during the exterior finish filling. Fill the 1/4"x35" tunnel in the vertical stabilizer with foam. No structural changes.

Has anyone with a conventional gear Q2/200 dealth with this problem with no subsequent problems? If so, what did you do?

Joseph Snow


Re: Fuel Vent Line

French <LJFrench@...>
 

Guys,
Thanks again for the dialog.
Like I tell my Engineers at work - As long as we keep doing things the way we always have, we will continue to get the results we always have.
In this case, without change, I suspect we will continue to see boost pumps added to carburetors, and vent systems questioned as a result of incident.
I'm building my second Q200 kit and will probably incorporate a cocktail of improvements based on discussions held here as well as my currently successful vent system. If I come up with anything totally earth shattering I may get bold and bring the subject up again.
Thanks
Lynn French

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gall" <David@Gall.com>
To: <Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Fuel Vent Line


Bob,

We're on the same page; I didn't miss your point. I agree with you 100%. :) Yes, on all counts, including Mike Perry's count that its time to put this puppy away. Would I change a working system? No. Will I build mine the same way? No. Thanks for helping me to find my way to that answer.


David J. Gall


Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

I'm guessing.... The first one on this page.

http://www.finleyweb.net/default.asp?id=180

Jon Finley
N90MG - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru
Mid-Valley Airpark, Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Mark A. Pearson
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 6:16 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/


Chris;
Where did you see this inspiring video? I'm putting a 532 in my Q1 and
could use some serious motivation to get back to actually working on it.

Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: chrishazlitt
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:39 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo, Q1, Super Quickie and Q2/


When I post here please forget I bought a DF project, I'm still
wanting a Q too but don't want to build one, I already have
something to work on that way. The Q1 is of interest to me because
of a video I saw that was increadible, but it actually wasn't a Q1,
it had a 583 Rotax in it. I realize that some don't like the thought
of using that particular engine on a Q1 but wow, it flew like a bird
with the high HP.

Another fellow has been in communication with me via email about his
53 HP Super Quickie and he said the same thing, it is as close to
flying like a bird was he has ever felt in an airplane.

Initially, my interest was in the Q2's, or Q200 and I can't say I
wouldn't buy one of those over a single place Quickie if I could
pull enough cash together and one showed up at the right time... I
could easily go that direction instead.

I think the rudder question comes from us know near nothings about
this aircraft due to how tiny the rudder looks in comparision to
other two place aircraft we have either seen or flown. I've got
hours, soloed on my 16th birthday with over 2K hours now in 25
different aircraft, but none in a canard so I suppose my having
bought this DF project and wishing I owned a Quickie of some kind is
foolish for having never flown with someone in one... yet, if it
flies, I don't care, it's beautiful! It can be fast, require skills
I may need to hone up on to fly it but wow, what a beautiful
machine.

I am have been working as a senior engineer in telecommunications so
in my own element I am considered very capable but with homebuilts,
being completely new to them I feel somewhat like like a fish out of
water in these groups and too defensive when someone tells me to
stop being redundant with my questions accusing Jim of flamming me
when it appears the folk here just aren't afraid to say what they
think... well... I did that too. I was primed because I had just got
finished barking at Sammy over at the Q200 engine group the night
before (email) for shewing me away from his group in public for my
having included a question about the Jabiru engine in a post on the
O-200 I had made and then the next thing I see when I get up in the
morning is is a post here with comments I wasn't in a mood for
before coffee.

Sometimes I think these things are somehow connected? LOL...

Thanks for your help guys.... I will do more archive searching
bofore clogging the group up with so many newbie questions in the
future.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Welsh" <kfly@...> wrote:
>
> HI Cris:
>
> So your looking for a Q1? I usually scan over these things and
perhaps missed the Q1 thing earlier. Not that much Q1 stuff on the
LIST.
>
> My reason for writing is that you will get more informative
answers to your questions from the Q1 crowd than the Q2 guys. Mainly
because most Q2 fellas have never flown a Q1. And most Q1 fellas
have had a ride in a Q2. Therefore your handling questions for the
Q1 will most likly get different answers from the Q1 guys. The two
Q's are really quite different animals despite looking the same.
>
> Now to ease your pain a bit. The Q1 is slow, performance similar
in stall and cruise to a C-150. That kind of plane performance wise,
at least with the Onan. It ain't fast on landing, final at 70 and
touchdown in the mid 50's, very responsive to control input and very
pleasantly responsive to aileron steering on the ground at speeds 20
and above. The rudder is more than enough to execute a very nice
slip when needed, it slips just as good as my C-170 proving the
rudder is FINE, I get so blown away at these rudder discussions they
are so unnecessary, ever wonder why the flyers never complain about
the rudder only the builders and dreamers?, and together with the
ailerons the directional control is more than adequate in x-winds.
>
> The only control surface with which I would like to see more
authority are the ailerons. When in a steep 60+ degree bank I
personally would like the plane to roll out a little faster. The
learning curve will be more concentrated with the stuff not
necessarily associated with with the span cans like learning the
tricks of aileron steering, very cool when mastered, the landing
configuration as opposed to the flying configuration. Most don't
realize the Q1 is in climb configuration when setting on the ground.
The configuration from flying to landing flair will take a little
getting used to but that will come quickly. On the other hand the Q2
definately benefits from a few upgrades, the Gall and 6 pack, but
the Q1 doesn't it's good per plans.
>
> All in all the Q1 is a fine flying machine which doesn't need
deviated from the plans. Build it per those plans and you will have
a plane to enjoy for many years.
>
> Keith Welsh
> 340+ hrs N494K
> Flying since May 1989
>
> P.S. I can understand why Jim and others get flamed at rudder and
handling questions. Got any idea how many times they have answered
them? Where these notions come from is a mystery to me but they sure
linger from generation to generation. Just like going from a C-150
to a Super Decathlon there is a learning curve and patients and
knowledge is golden.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: chrishazlitt
> To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:55 PM
> Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Jim Patillo
>
>
> I want a flying Q1... trying to get the money together now for
when
> the right opportunity presents itself. That is why so many
questions
> from me trying to zero in on the most predominant cause for
troubles,
> didn't mean to get anyones dander up with so many newbie
questions,
> it's settled now... I appreciate Jim's willingness to go to the
extent
> he did to educate me but if someone wants to flame me for being
> stupid, please email me directly in the future. :)
>
> --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Q2FLYBOY@ wrote:
> >
> > The Q rudder is fine.Plenty of authority in x winds and
steering.
> The
> > problem is there is not enough weight on the tailwheel to make
it
> steer. The
> > reflexor takes care of that . It corrects how the parts wher
glued
> together in
> > building.
> >
> > Dave Carlson
> > Q2 Revmaster 400 +hrs never dinged. In garage for sale.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Q2/200

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

Just click the column header and you have the builders by state.

As far as more entries, tell the folks that aren't there to add themselves.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
larry severson
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q2/200


At 05:33 PM 8/14/2006, you wrote:

Once again! Go to Quickie Builders Association, top of the page,
Resources, Builder Information. You will find all the people
building and flying Q's
I still say searchable would be great, but sorted by state would be
an improvement.
We obviously also need to get a whole lot more entries. How about the
newsletter members?


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@socal.rr.com



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Fuel Vent Line

David J. Gall
 

Thanks, Mike! :) What I didn't mention is that even Cessna got burned by the downward vent and the interconnected tanks. IIRC, they now require vented caps (on top!) on C150's thru C172's (at least). Lessons to be learned....


David J. Gall
P.S. Rube was a family friend... read "The Systems Bible"....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Perry" <dmperry1012@charter.net>
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Fuel Vent Line
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:08:43 -0700


Dave:

I think I can see ways around the problems you suggest, and I'm not sure
the two tanks are always "just one tank" in a fluids or any other
sense. However, as I think about answers to the problems you propose --
and as I think back to the design I was thinking of BEFORE the one I
actually published on this list -- I sense the presence of some old
friends: Rube Goldberg, Mickey Mouse and Captain Murphy. Time to give up
on this one.

By the way, this comment by you is right on: " We're all so used to seeing
a fuel tank vent under the wing of the Cessna we rent that we may not be
putting much thought into the "simple" act of "copying" that vent. Indeed,
that vent is very different from the QAC vent."

Thanks, Mike Perry


Re: Fuel Vent Line

David J. Gall
 

Bob,

We're on the same page; I didn't miss your point. I agree with you 100%. :) Yes, on all counts, including Mike Perry's count that its time to put this puppy away. Would I change a working system? No. Will I build mine the same way? No. Thanks for helping me to find my way to that answer.


David J. Gall


Re: Diesel Quickie

Webcave
 

In reference to the diesel Q at Oshkosh. It has been stretched at least 8". Both between the canard and the main wing as well as in front of the canard to accomadate the engine. This a new bird. I took several photos both before and after the foruum. If you check them against a standard Q1 it is very noticible.

Jack M.

-----Original Message-----
From: jeffs912ex@aol.com
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Diesel Quickie


Hi Bruce,


Hey, look what I found in my "waiting to be sent folder" better late than
never.

The fellow who did the engine installations doesn't even know all the
answers you request. Rather than give you incorrect info I'll stick with just what
I remember, I wasn't taking notes. I'll bet someone did though . The first
diesel flown on this airframe was a 4 cylinder. The fuel burn was not known by
him, but he did say it would run on just about anything including peanut
oil. A very compact six cylinder is on the firewall now and is rated well over
100 hp. Test pilot Dave M. is scheduled for the honor of test flight, soon.
I'm sure you will see and hear more about this plane, it is a beautiful
example of an experimental aircraft. I think a better test bed for this engine is
a Q 200 at least you could punch it. That reminds me, good job Sam. Those
lawn darts have a bit of an advantage though. Thought I saw you at Doug's hot
dog roast, na maybe not.

Jeff Sell
Q-200 kit





________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


Re: THIS WEEKEND!

Mark Robinson
 

Hi Jim,

I'm planning to attend. But since my Q2 is now sans
engine (installing a 0-235), I'll be arriving on a
different set of wings. A friend has told me that he
also plans to be there.

See you there.
--- Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@msn.com> wrote:


Fellas,

Well so far we have three (3) people attending our
flyin this weekend,
it should be a blast. A couple of hotdogs and a six
pack of Bud ought
to do the trick!

Please remember we only do this fly in for the
benefit of our builders
and pilots. No turn out equates to no interest which
equates to no fly
in's the future.

If you are comming please let us know now.

Thanks Jim Patillo





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Re: Wiring Tail Nav Light

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

I learned a long time ago it's better to get on with the job than to fret
about it. BTW, the hole I the photo was courtesy PhotoShop, not a Milwaukee
Hole saw. I just doctored up an old photo to show you what I meant.

Yes, you can fill the hole with expanding foam. If you want more
reassurance, give me a call.

Sam



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Snow
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:06 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Wiring Tail Nav Light



Sam,

That is a Awsome hole! I had to look to see if that was your airplane. The
vertical fin paint job looks like yours. And you are still flying and I have
ridden in your airplane. Ok, here goes.....

Joseph


Re: Q2/200

Larry Severson
 


How about this?
<http://www.frappr.com/tandemwings>http://www.frappr.com/tandemwings

Pat
Interesting. I was one of the first 5 to sign up, but no longer appear.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@socal.rr.com


Re: Jim Patillo

njepsen@ihug.co.nz <njepsen@...>
 

This is excellent advice Peter and something that I personally adhere too with my 2 tail draggers. But it is rarely taught by instructors. It also explains why its always easier to steer a TG ( IMHO) after the tail comes up, because then you can see better and the eye can see the errors earlier and the corrections become smaller but further ahead of the 8 ball.
Hope all is well with you. Stanica & I are shivering in the cold NZ winter at the moment. We will be over your way again in a couple of months at a shooting competition at Belmont, so are looking forward to a little of the warmer clime!
Neil


Peter Harris wrote:

I think a lot of new Q drivers run into trouble because they are not looking
at the far end of the runway. Resist the temptation to look at the
foreground. The landing roll is a bit like carrying a very full cup of
coffee. Look at the coffee and you will sure as hell spill it. It is not
possible for a driver with normal reaction time , to steer a Quickie if not
watching the far end of the runway.

My view.

Peter (no ground loops)

_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
dkeats
Sent: Sunday, 13 August 2006 10:31 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Jim Patillo

Alaska Chris------------- The two most common reasons for the Qs going
off the runway are, they don't have the Gall wheel alignment and the
other is the pilot doesn't keep up with the airplane. You gotta remember
, these airplanes are doing alot with the amount of hp they have. I feel
they are a high performance airplane. Put on top of that , they are
taildraggers and you may have a handfull for the normal C-150 driver.
Anyone with 100 hrs in a Q or Dragonfly manages to handle these
airplanes no problem.
At my home airport there are pilots flying the 25 million dollar CL415
turbine water bombers, and they look at me in awe when I do a
performance takeoff. They understand their is no teacher like
experience. Learn to fly them and you'll fall in
love.----------------Canada Chris



------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.10/418 - Release Date: 14/08/2006


Re: Q2/200

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

It has chat too!!!


Re: Q2/200

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Once again! Go to Quickie Builders Association, top of the page,
Resources, Builder Information. You will find all the people
building and flying Q's
I still say searchable would be great, but sorted by state would be
an improvement.
We obviously also need to get a whole lot more entries. How about the
newsletter members?
How about this?
http://www.frappr.com/tandemwings

Pat


Re: Jim Patillo

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Just like motorcycle riding.

Pat

I think a lot of new Q drivers run into trouble because they are not
looking
at the far end of the runway. Resist the temptation to look at the
foreground. The landing roll is a bit like carrying a very full cup of
coffee. Look at the coffee and you will sure as hell spill it. It is not
possible for a driver with normal reaction time , to steer a Quickie if
not
watching the far end of the runway.

My view.

Peter (no ground loops)


Re: Wiring Tail Nav Light

Joseph Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Sam,

That is a Awsome hole! I had to look to see if that was your airplane. The vertical fin paint job looks like yours. And you are still flying and I have ridden in your airplane. Ok, here goes.....

Joseph


Re: Q2/200

Larry Severson
 

At 05:33 PM 8/14/2006, you wrote:

Once again! Go to Quickie Builders Association, top of the page,
Resources, Builder Information. You will find all the people
building and flying Q's
I still say searchable would be great, but sorted by state would be an improvement.
We obviously also need to get a whole lot more entries. How about the newsletter members?


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@socal.rr.com


Re: Wiring Tail Nav Light

Joseph Snow <1flashq@...>
 

I don't know anything about a plans change involving glasss to the upper inside of the rear fuselage. I remember some discussion on the repair of a broken rear fuselage with additional discussion on strengthening the rear fuselage. I have not made changes like that to my fuselage, as yet. Tell me more.

Joseph


Re: Jim Patillo

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

I think a lot of new Q drivers run into trouble because they are not looking
at the far end of the runway. Resist the temptation to look at the
foreground. The landing roll is a bit like carrying a very full cup of
coffee. Look at the coffee and you will sure as hell spill it. It is not
possible for a driver with normal reaction time , to steer a Quickie if not
watching the far end of the runway.

My view.

Peter (no ground loops)



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
dkeats
Sent: Sunday, 13 August 2006 10:31 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Jim Patillo



Alaska Chris------------- The two most common reasons for the Qs going
off the runway are, they don't have the Gall wheel alignment and the
other is the pilot doesn't keep up with the airplane. You gotta remember
, these airplanes are doing alot with the amount of hp they have. I feel
they are a high performance airplane. Put on top of that , they are
taildraggers and you may have a handfull for the normal C-150 driver.
Anyone with 100 hrs in a Q or Dragonfly manages to handle these
airplanes no problem.
At my home airport there are pilots flying the 25 million dollar CL415
turbine water bombers, and they look at me in awe when I do a
performance takeoff. They understand their is no teacher like
experience. Learn to fly them and you'll fall in
love.----------------Canada Chris


Re: Q2/200

Jim Patillo
 

Once again! Go to Quickie Builders Association, top of the page,
Resources, Builder Information. You will find all the people
building and flying Q's

Jim P.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:

From new Kitplanes safety article:
"Only 7% of homebuilt accidents during the nominal 40-hour test
period involved sn RV. Why? Many factors, but I guess the biggest
driver is support available from thousands of successful builders.
For most new builders, hands-on help is available - and sometimes
as
close as the next hanger. Questions can be quickly answered,
errors
can be caught early, and stick time prior to first flight is a
phone
call away."

A searchable database listing all flyers an builders (including
state
of finish) by local would go a long way towards solving this
problem
for us. I recently (after 2 years at Chino) located 1 other Q2
here,
and understand that there may be others. There are flyers and
builders all over, but finding them is complex. Putting in the
engine
type, etc. would help. A bit ago, I saw a database (not
searchable)
having the info, but it seems to have disappeared. If the Q2 is
going
to resurface, we need to get closer to what Kitplanes said about
the RV.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: Fuel Vent Line

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

Dave:

I think I can see ways around the problems you suggest, and I'm not sure
the two tanks are always "just one tank" in a fluids or any other
sense. However, as I think about answers to the problems you propose --
and as I think back to the design I was thinking of BEFORE the one I
actually published on this list -- I sense the presence of some old
friends: Rube Goldberg, Mickey Mouse and Captain Murphy. Time to give up
on this one.

By the way, this comment by you is right on: " We're all so used to seeing
a fuel tank vent under the wing of the Cessna we rent that we may not be
putting much thought into the "simple" act of "copying" that vent. Indeed,
that vent is very different from the QAC vent."

Thanks, Mike Perry

At 01:03 AM 8/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:

Mike,

I'm not advocating this installation at all: I'm trying to get people to see
the difficulties of it and to opt for the simpler vent going out the top of
the fuselage. We're all so used to seeing a fuel tank vent under the wing of
the Cessna we rent that we may not be putting much thought into the "simple"
act of "copying" that vent. Indeed, that vent is very different from the QAC
vent. And you're right, the transition from large diameter to small in my
suggestion does pose a potential problem.

Let me jump to the conclusion regarding your suggestion to use the filler
pipe as a catch tank. In essence, the Q2/200 fuel tank(s) are actually (in a
fluids sense) just one tank. The header tank is connected to the main tank
via the 5/8" standpipe down the middle, through which the "two" tanks
communicate both fuel and air.

The advent of the header tank is that it provides a reliable head pressure
to feed the carb. The header tank is kept full by the fuel transfer pump.
You can think of this transfer pump as a part of a "live" tank as opposed to
a passive tank. In a passive tank like on a Cessna, when the tank is nearly
empty the head pressure is still good because the bottom of the tank is
above the carb. In the Q2/200, the "bottom" of the tank is artificially
moved up to the level of the bottom of the header tank, because as the main
tank empties we transfer the fuel to the header. This "live" transfer makes
the tank seem to the carb (in a fluids sense) to be mounted higher in the
airframe.

Consider the act of filling the tank: If you fill the main tank until the
filler neck is full, doesn't the fuel also rise within the 5/8" standpipe to
the same level as in the filler neck? Now, mind you, I haven't got
operational experience with a Q2, but it seems to me that you either have to
run the electric fuel pump during refueling in order to fill the header
tank, or else the header tank fills when the fuel level reaches the top of
the 5/8" standpipe. Either way, when the header tank is full so is the 5/8
stand pipe and so is the filler pipe. Therefore, ANY vent connected to this
tank system anywhere had better be above the fuel level or it will have fuel
in it. Ergo, your proposed vent from the filler pipe would need to be just
as long (in the vertical dimension) as the existing vent from the header
tank. Moreover, the filler pipe vent would be just as susceptible to fuel
getting into it as the existing vent line is.

Keep up the good work,

David J. Gall