Date   

Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Doug

Is there a Q-200 POH also?

Peter



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Doug Humble
Sent: Monday, 26 February 2007 12:45 AM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted



I just downloaded the pdf from John's site and I'll put it out at the QBA
site soon. Good to have it in a couple of places anyway.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- 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


Re: Sam H's Sparrow Strainers

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Yes, mine are close to the fuselage. I don't remember why they are there,
since I installed them about 22 years ago.

Anyone else?

Sam Hoskins

Murphysboro, IL



_____

From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
viggenbuilder2
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:35 PM
To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Q-LIST] Sam H's Sparrow Strainers



Sam H,
Was I dreaming, or are your sparrow strainers fairly close to the root
end. Mine are in the middle, so what is the thinking behind it ? Does
it matter where they are ?

Richard Thomson
TriQ G-BMFN 368hrs old
richard@cloudland. <mailto:richard%40cloudland.co.uk> co.uk


Sam H's Sparrow Strainers

Richard Thomson
 

Sam H,
Was I dreaming, or are your sparrow strainers fairly close to the root
end. Mine are in the middle, so what is the thinking behind it ? Does
it matter where they are ?

Richard Thomson
TriQ G-BMFN 368hrs old
richard@cloudland.co.uk


Re: Progress update

Richard Thomson
 

Joseph,
One tip that I saw on the Canard Aviators site from Ken Miller I
believe, was if you are using epoxy primer add some dry micro in any
pin holes or small defects as you paint. It bonds tight and is easy
to sand ready for paint. I tried a small tester and it seems to work
quite well.

Rich Thomson
TriQ G-BMFN 368 hours old
richard@cloudland.co.uk







--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote:

I am really sorry about not getting this link correct. Try this
one:

http://corvairq.info/Microfiller.htm

Joseph


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


No More Sun Bumps ( or finding the neutral zone )

Richard Thomson
 

Hi All,
I had dealt with all the bumps that had been there on the tail cone
before Xmas, so after the cold spell began to lift back in mid Jan, I
looked to get things ready to start priming.
I started sanding back, and noticed some more bumps had appeared. So I
picked at these and bingo, before I knew it I had stripped about 2 sq
feet of paint without any adhesion at all.
So with Mike D's advice ringing in my head, I decided enough was enough
and set to work to strip it all off the tail cone. This is now done,
and I have started to refill with epoxy filler and things are at last
seemingly better. At least I can now see the substrate and know that
the filler will be good.
Now the interesting part is that all the paint seemed to strip from a
neutral zone (To pinch a term from Star Trek), which as it came off in
sheets or strips, the paint was black on the back, but the black layer
was still on the surface it had come off of. So the black layer had
separated causing the lack of adherance. Looking at the paint strips,
the black on the back was firmly adhered to the paint. The black layer
on the tail cone was also firmly attached. So it was the black layer
that had "split"! Has anybody else had this happen ? Is this relate to
damp conditions?
This has caused me to wonder what to do with regard to the refinishing.
I am using epoxy primer, and two pack poly top coat, which is an
effective UV barrier, so do I need to reapply the black layer with the
possible further problem of lack of adhesion ? Do you guys still use
the black UV layer, or have you all moved on from it now ?

Richard Thomson
Tri Q G-BMFN 368 hours old.
richard@cloudland.co.uk


Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

I have the Q-2 manual in a zip file, opens into a .doc file which opens
fine in WordPerfect and I suppose in Microsoft Word as well (never
tried). I also have the Quickie (Q-1) manual as a .pdf.

I am unwilling to post them on the web due to unclear copyright issues but
I will provide it directly to anyone for personal use.

contact me direct at:

dmperry1012@charter.net

if you want a copy. Charles Coleman, your copy is on its way.

Mike Perry

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


Progress update

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

I am really sorry about not getting this link correct. Try this one:

http://corvairq.info/Microfiller.htm

Joseph


Progress update

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

OOps! The previous email had a misspelling in the link. Sorry about that.
Here is a link updating my progress on N240JS. It is about Microfinishing.

www.corvairq.info/Microfiller.htm


Joseph Snow


Progress update

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Here is a link updating my progress on N240JS. It is about Microfinishing.

www.corvairq.info/Microfiller.htm


Joseph Snow


Re: Sam H's Sparrow Strainers

MartinErni@...
 

In a message dated 2/25/2007 4:21:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
shoskins@mchsi.com writes:

Yes, mine are close to the fuselage. I don't remember why they are there,
since I installed them about 22 years ago.



The plans called for them to be at the root because that put them in the
prop blast, which made them more effective and allowed them to be smaller than
if they were outboard.

Earnest
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.


trip to usa

enzo fraschini <enzo.fraschini@...>
 

I do work for an italian company in the aerospace field and will be in
the US for a business trip in the next days.

I cannot claim anymore being a Q1 builder , since I never completed the
airplane. I stopped working on it almost ten years ago, with the
structure only completed.

I had went to Oshkosh acouple of times, in 1983 and later, maybe in
2000, but could never see a Q1 flying. I met a builder/pilot (do not
recall the name) in Utica, NY, and three others in Europe (Mark Johnson,
Martin Burns, and Gerhard Gugler, if I correctly remember the names).
All of them have been very helpful on different aspects, while not
enough to compensate for my lazyness. Having now discovered this group
on the net, I wonder if any of them is a member of it....and would like
to contact me: I would be pleased to know of news from them.

But the purpose of this message is to know if there may be the
opportunity to meet american builders during my visit. I will be in
Orlando, Albuquerque / Santa Fe (on Sunday, 4th), then Salt Lake City,
San Antonio, Arlington and Seattle: I will have little time (and will
travel with a colleague), but wonder if anybody with a Q1 (on a main
airport or close to it) would be available for a quick meeting.

Consider this first message as an initial investigation: advance thanks
for availability.


Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

I just downloaded the pdf from John's site and I'll put it out at the QBA site soon. Good to have it in a couple of places anyway.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- 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
>


Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

re5ande1 <ckcoleman@...>
 

Richard:

Thanks very much for the link for the Q2 manual. I believe that
Doug Humble would like to have the WORD version to post on the QBA
website.

Charles Coleman


--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Hole" <rickhole@...> wrote:

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

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

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


Re: Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

Richard Hole <rickhole@...>
 

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


Q2 Pilot Manual / Performance numbers wanted

re5ande1 <ckcoleman@...>
 

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


Re: Q2 in Crookston, MN

James Postma <james@...>
 

Hello Kris,

I am the previous owner of N145EX.
It has a GU canard with custom vortex generators of my design.
Other modifications are a large rudder, wheel alinement, Larue brake mod. It does not need any other mods for ground handling. I was very satisfied with it. There are many posts on the list about my mods. It does not need toe brakes or a bell crank or a tail wheel change. It will need a new tail spring.
I flew this airplane for 110 hours which is in the log book. I flew it from California to Canada in 2004.

The engine is in running condition.

You may taxi the airplane to get some experience with the ground handling but please do not fly it until you fix the missing foam in the canard problem. To show how strong these airplanes are, I believe that the foam was missing most of the hours that I flew it. I was doing 3g stalls to test the VG's.

I did repair the leak which is entered in the log book, but I would recommend not to keep any fuel in the header tank when not flying. The fuel switch has a drain position which drains the fuel back to the main tank.

After you fix the canard, I can be your flight advisor.

Please mail me off list with any questions.

James Postma
Q2 Revmaster with LS-1 was N8337F
Q200 N8427
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
(253) 691-2979 cell
May your header tank be always full and your wings right side up.

----- 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


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
 

No scroll back, I have never ever quoted what YOUR quickie will do or not do.

I told you in my last message that 130 MPH was from a poster named "Ryan".

Please duplicate what I'm saying this time.

That I have quoted that YOUR VW 1835 to do 130 MPH is your own creation , deduction and conclution.

I hope we're not getting into a communication where one have to nod the head, talk slowly and loud..... while showing a very simple thing that have to be understood.

We're talking engine options for the Q1, you created your own side track to nowhere my friend.

If you care to go back in that direction you're welcome. You seem to have a very good experience from the VW field, some do some dont.



Jon Finley <jon@finleyweb.net> wrote:
Oh brother, this discussion is going no where.

THAT (1835cc) is the VW that I had in my Quickie!! In your message you said
"you got 130 MPH". I believed that you (Roger) were saying that I (Jon) got
130MPH with my 1835cc powered VW Quickie. That is VERY far from accurate.
Perhaps that is what Ryan's Tri-Quickie got but that is far short of what my
conventional gear Quickie would do.

Jon

-----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.


Re: Flight Report

twkte <spilligan@...>
 

What a luvly read that was Kevin. Very envious

Trevor

--- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...> wrote:

I just couldn't resist.
Today I went flying for the first time in six weeks. Last flight
was
6 Jan 07.
Today I flew just for the love of it. No tests. No Plan. Just fun.
TO was normal from 17. Left the pattern to the east. Flew over
home.
Then I headed further east. OUT of my test area for the first
time.
Flew over the Mississippi river at Prairie Du Chein WI. The river
is
frozen over. It has been WELL below zero for over over a month,
off
and on. Mostly on. Reports have it that ice is 12 to 18 inches
thick.
The reason I bring this up, as I was over the river, I thought it
would be a good place for emergency landing if needed. Then I
thought
about the springs, thin ice, slushy snow, cold water. Glad I did
not
have to find out.
Back west over home again. Then 240° back to the airport. Got
there
and decided I had not had enough, and headed south to the next
town.
Then back again.
Entered the pattern for 17 downwind. Approach was good.
Ballooned
after touching down.
Experience, and my friends have taught me to just go around. Did.
Added power and flew right out of trouble. Next approach was very
nice. Touch down was good, added power again and went for
another.
Third landing was also good. It wanted to fly after touchdown, so
I
reflexed the ailerons TE down. Puts weight on the nose, stays on
the
ground.
Damn I'm lucky!
Keep building, it only gets better!
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 45.7 hours
Luana, IA.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Looking to buy Q2/Q200/TRI-Q 200 for sale

Trevor Fernihough <spilligan@...>
 

Hi Bart
Trevor Fernihough here in Australia. I could be interested
Can you send me some pics.
Why are you selling?
What price for what ?

Trevor

----- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
 

Correct, its about 1 3/4 inch wider, they come in different shaft diameters.

If you are unsure of what to use, sort them out first, by horisontal or vertical, shaft, go with the horisontal shaft ( well that was easy)

Take a magnet and touch the engine casing, it shoud not be magnetic, if it is, you're looking at a cast iron anchor. Get the aluminun casing only.

To be absolutely sure what you have, pop a head and measure the bore and stroke.

Measure the Diameter, and divide it in 2. ( This is the same thing as the Radius)

Measure the stroke from the cyliners top position to it's bottom position.

Ok toss in the numbers in this formula .

R X R X 3.14 x stroke x 2.

With other words.

Radius times Radius, times 3.14 (Pi), times stroke, times 2 ( number of cylinders).

If you get 48 cu inch or close to it, you have the smaller Onan. Same, if you get 60 or thereabout, you have the bigger Onan you want.

Shave the flywheel off in the same manners as the original was done. Here is where a lot of weight is shaved.

A counter weight is needed on the propflange, check old litterture on how it looked and where it was located. Probably some trial and error here until you get it right.

For power, there are a few fairly easy things to do here.

Compression, shave the heads, but be very conservative, dont go overboard, but do just a touch, as this is a flat head, and a lot of pockets crannies and cavities are present, that can produce "knock". I would probably dont go more than 8 to 1 in compression ratio, but would rather stay happy with 7,75 to 1 in comp ratio.

Porting, the ports are in the engie block ( as this is a flat head), they were designed by a drunk plumber, and is almost a 90 degree knee turn.

They can be ported very nicely for much better flow. Do some hours with a Dremel tool.

Top of piston and inside the head, you can apply a thermal coating, that will trap as much of the heat as possible, increasing the efficiancy a few ( but important) percent.

Regrind the cam, however, the camlobes backside are almost flush with the camshaft, you must put the camshaft in the lathe and get a slightly slimmer shaft before you go to the camgrinder. Ask for a modern profile where you get the power around 2500 and 3500 RPM, give him the data that this is a flat head as cams do different things to an over head and a flat head engine.

You should conservatively get 26-27 HP with this set up, maybe more if you're lucky.

Prop , you can go through a lot of props especially to determine a stall speed for a specific engine that is an unknown. I would get a slightly longer prop, that you can cut, if needed, and adjustable. These are the composite props. IVO prop can be cut in a band saw.

The original prop, on the Onan that came with the kit, and engine assembly was carved to stall at around 3000 RPM static, on the ground.

I would get as large diameter prop as your nerves will allowe you to install, and adjust it with the center adjuster, so your Onan will stall at 3000 RPM. That is much cheaper than for an unknown engine go trough a number of fixed wooden prop.

Also if you happen to be in a high altitude, and dont have all the power avaliable, and cant get the prop up on the power band, and have a potential dangerous take off, you can just adjust the prop to get up on the 'rpm and get going.

If you want to develop on this, you can also have the pilot cockpit adjustable electric gizmo installed, but it's not necessary for now.

The bolt on pattern in the back of the 60 Cu Inch Onan is the same as the 48 Cu Inch Onan and should be installed per plans.

Some sag have been known to happen on that engie installation, I would still do it per the Onan original installation plan, except do some extra layer of fiberglass where the drill hole into the firewall is to be.

There was a plate sold from the kit manufacturer, that was to be bolted onto the engine, the plate itself was to be bolted onto the firewall fasteners that goes through the firewall.

That plate was a kevlar plate, very strong, and light weight, Dont know today how to get hold of one of those, but they were manufactured once, so I guess they can still be made, if you know how to do them. Possibly you can go on the aftermarket and try to get one of those.

Weight difference between a 60 and a 48 Onan is not much, size difference is about 1.3/4 wider.shoud not be too hard to overcome, very close to the original plans.

One weight saving that can be done, if you have a friend that have a machine shop, ask him to do the Onan front plate, in aluminun rather than the cast iron front plate. You find those cast iron front plates on both aluminun and cast iron engines.

Get an electronic ignition kit, if you get an engine with points. They are sold as after market at Onan dealers.

Onan have a very weird way of firing the ignition, it has through the back of the engine, a little rod pushing up and down, actuating either the points, or the electronic sensor. I dont like it myself, but they have a very long track record as an industriaol engine.

Good luck












denpau@mchsi.com wrote:
I don't have a picture but I assume it is slightly larger than the 48 cube
Onan. There should be identifying numbers on the engines. If I remember
correctly "B48M" identifies the smaller engine.

Dennis of Georgia
once upon a time: Dennis of Homestead Florida








---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.