----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hole
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

You will find the Q2 pilot manual link on this page:

http://www.finleywe
<http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/QuickieQ2Docs/tabid/58/Default.aspx>
b.net/JonsStuff/QuickieQ2Docs/tabid/58/Default.aspx

I also have this manual in a WORD document which could be posted on the
QBA site.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "re5ande1"
<ckcoleman@...> wrote:

Does anyone know of a source for an online version of the Q2 pilot
manual? Among other things, I'd like to find out what the takeoff

and

landing distances are for a Revmaster powered Q2 (64HP), GU airfoil,
max gross wt (1000 lbs) over a 50 ft obstacle. If you know the

source

of the manual, or know these numbers I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks

re5ande1

At 01:14 AM 2/25/2007 +0000, you wrote:

Does anyone know of a source for an online version of the Q2 pilot
manual? Among other things, I'd like to find out what the takeoff and
landing distances are for a Revmaster powered Q2 (64HP), GU airfoil,
max gross wt (1000 lbs) over a 50 ft obstacle. If you know the source
of the manual, or know these numbers I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks

re5ande1

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hole
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted


You will find the Q2 pilot manual link on this page:

http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/QuickieQ2Docs/tabid/58/Default.aspx

I also have this manual in a WORD document which could be posted on the
QBA site.

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "re5ande1" <ckcoleman@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a source for an online version of the Q2 pilot
> manual? Among other things, I'd like to find out what the takeoff
and
> landing distances are for a Revmaster powered Q2 (64HP), GU airfoil,
> max gross wt (1000 lbs) over a 50 ft obstacle. If you know the
source
> of the manual, or know these numbers I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks
>
> re5ande1
>

----- Original Message -----
From: kleirfall@ecomail.org
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Q2 in Crookston, MN


My name is Kris Leirfallom and I just traded my KR-2 for a Q2. I have it
hangered in Crookston, MN (CKN), is there anybody fairly close to come over with
their Quickie and give some instruction. Some instruction would be greatly
appreciated!
Kris

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
This email comes to you via EcoMail!
Swim over to http://www.ecocity.com and sign up for your *FREE* account

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Just go back a couple of posts and read "Ryan" and read his data, "130mph
cruise.."

.........."1835cc", what makes you introduce that number?, we have only
said ""VW," ....no... just pestering you now . :)

We can probably agree to that when mankind have master the secret of
gravity and can control it, we dont need VW's, Onans or wings.

Jon Finley <jon@finleyweb.net> wrote:
130 MPH with the 1835cc VW, where did you get that number???

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one.

True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive
experience with it, in the Q1.

I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around
110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much.

Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I
assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package
instead.

I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a
half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse.

The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many
kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to
an excellent kitplane choice.

The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many
engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette.

2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very
compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than
it's worth.

Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction
gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound.

2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan
that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a
little extra weight on one end of the prop flange).

4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close
enough that smooth running can happen.

There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1.

Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small
enough.

VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft
design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design
limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an
option.

You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared
to deal with.

Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than
the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with
reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power.

The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines,
and they grew larger as they went.

The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with
the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked
into first, but even there the weight and size was too much.

There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the
4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of
bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was
just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it
looked like an airplane engine.

Best was a fraction over 17 HP.

By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good
looking engine, that's all.

Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same
size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're
back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same,
using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version.

According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had
an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it.

The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie
size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a
bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look
for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem.

One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could
be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead
of over head valves.

That would :
1. Decrease the weight
2. Decrease very much the width.
3. Exhaust can be routed straight down,
4. Intake can be made into an updraft.
5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses

There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare
engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed.

Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally
sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned
out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this
can be tamed.

I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size
close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real"
airplane engine).

I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to
get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it.

It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much
machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect.

One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is
an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not.

A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we
jut goooota have the 100 HP.

Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for
worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in
the context that I answered the question.

There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his
Q1.

I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front.

The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from
reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design
you are the better chance of success.

A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V
engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay
( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and
size limits.

When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a
cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got
a monster in there and it's beyond the design.

Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the
plans.

Jon Finley <jon@finleyweb.net> wrote:
Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of
"fact" come
from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However;
having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say
that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate.

"As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse,
but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for
a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan."

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch
Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit
manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a
much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch
wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it
works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a
2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as
close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out
now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at
3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for
worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very
wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again,
you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1,
that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a
clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original
as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to
experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them
in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft
building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but
engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.

Jon Finley <jon@finleyweb.net> wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no
more expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley <jon@finleyweb.net> wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the
speed increased

Jon Finley <jon@finleyweb.net> wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and
hotel bargains.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.



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

Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums &amp; communities.
Links






---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

----- Original Message -----
From: fisherb@umich.edu
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com ; Mike Perry
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Looking to buy Q2/Q200/TRI-Q 200 for sale



build or fly?
After owning and flying for many years it is with great sadness I am
offering my pride and joy up for sale 321AQ over 800hr of proven flight
time. I am selling only in parts. She is a nice Tri Q200 with the
larger Scott swinger nose gear, Ls 1 canard
1. Complete airframe minus cowlings
2. Complete 0200 with lycon high compression pistons professionally
built with vary low time. By Michigan Aviation.
3. The panel will go up on Ebay. If interested call 734-320-1026
Thanks Bart

Quoting Mike Perry <dmperry1012@charter.net>:

> Regarding LS1 vs GU canard, I think it is more accurate to say the GU has
> laminar flow over a larger portion of the wing surface, not that the LS1 is
> "not laminar flow."
>
> Regarding weight, the weight difference (if any) of the GU vs LS1 is
> insignificant. The real differences in weight come from surface finish,
> added features and engine weight. Too many people put full panels and
> redundant systems in planes that are only flown day-VFR. The weight range
> of finished Q2s and Q200s is enormous (same problem affects RVs and other
> popular models). Keep it light, it will fly better.
>
> Mike Perry
>
> At 08:50 AM 2/19/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Seldom mentioned is the fact that the LS1 canard, which is not
>> laminar flow - removing the need for VGs in rain, was forced to
>> include a carbon fiber spar for strength due to the wing profile
>> thinness. This allows the plane to fly at a higher gross weight. The
>> LS1 also requires sparrow strainers to ease elevator control
>> effectiveness. The wing is draggier and the sparrow strainer doesn't
>> help. Unless the canard if rough, the GU bird will always be faster
>> for a given HP, but unless it has additional layers of spar caps, it
>> will be weaker (hence the 100 lb max gross weight difference),
>> especially near the tips.
>>
>> Larry Severson
>> Fountain Valley, CA 92708
>> (714) 968-9852
>> <mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com>larry2@socal.rr.com
>
>
>
>
>
>