Date   

Re: Quickie in New Mexico?

Wesley Hebert
 

I guess I should have been more clear, I'm really only looking into
buying a flying airplane (and yes, I've been around the aviation
community enough that "flying" doesn't always mean flying. If I'm
going to build an airplane, I'm going to wait a couple years. I
realize that popping up and asking a bunch of peole I've never met
before for a ride in their airplane probably isn't the way to get a
flight, but I'd really like to see how it flies before I put the
effort into researching, buying or building one.


--- In Q-LIST@..., "wesisberg" <wes@...> wrote:

As someone who bought a flying Q200 two years ago and still haven't
flown, I would strongly recommend your going and talking to
owner/builders. It will save you a lot of time considering
things.
(At the Livermore California fly-in last year, someone drove all
the
way from Utah.)

These are wonderful planes, but you need to understand the kind of
commitment that is required to build and fly them. There is no
manual
for maintenance, parts, owners, or pilots; getting something wrong
can
cost you a lot of time, and it will take a lot of time just to find
out what's right, no less to do it. It's key to find people who
actually know what they're talking about, who you can trust, and
who
make the time to answer your questions. You will need to establish
yourself with them, so they know they won't be wasting time
mentoring
you. At a fly-in you can see the plane, ask your questions, find
out
what people think, and build relationships.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking, "Oh, I can get a cool
flying plane for $15,000!" The money is nothing compared to the
time.
It's even worse if, like many builders, you invest a ton of time
but
don't get in the air. (If you don't have time to drive to the fly-
in,
you almost certainly don't have time to build or maintain :)

Wes

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Wesley Hebert" <greenn17h@> wrote:

Yeah, I was thinking about that, the problem is I'd only be able
to
spend the day there, and it's a little far. Who knows, though,
I
still might try to go

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@>
wrote:

You could join us at one of our annual gatherings and see
several
Q's and
maybe get a demo ride or two.

http://www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/

Pat

Hey all, I'm considering buying or building a Q2 withen the
next
year
or 2. I'm currently in Albuquerque until May, and was
wondering if
there was anyone in the area that was willing to give a demo
flight.
Of course I'd be more than willing to pay for fuel and lunch
or
whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!


Lane Wallace

MartinErni@...
 

Livermore troop,
Lane Wallace of Flying magazine has a nice picture of your airport in
the April issue. I think Livermore is her home base. Has anyone met her? She
seems like a real down to earth airport bum. Maybe you should invite her over
at the next T/W fly in.
Earnest



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


Mountain States Canard Wing Fly-In

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Friends,

There seems to be some confusion over the event being held at Jean NV next
month, formerly held at Laughlin, NV, and before that, Avra Valley AZ, and
although I'm not certain, probably traces it's roots back to Rex Taylor and
Elyo AZ.

The event is the "Mountain States Canard Wing Fly-In"
www.mountainstatesfly-in.com
It's not a Quickie event, it's not a Dragonfly event, it's both, hence the
term "canard wing" (I didn't name it, but the name has stuck). The first one
I ever attended was actually the last one held at Avra Valley, and I believe
that was in 1999. Back then it was hosted exclusively by Don Stewart.

That year we had at least two forums, one was Margie Warnke who spoke on her
propeller business and another was someone who spoke of the dangers
associated with landing out in the desert. There may have been another one
or two, but I don't remember the details. But almost on the order of a
full-on forum was all the attention I received as I picked up the Corvair
engine core I had arranged to have delivered to me while at the event. Back
then, there was little known about Corvairs so there were a lot of questions
I found myself answering.

Due to issues I don't recall, Don moved the event to Laughlin, NV, where it
resided for six consecutive years. Since I was so deeply involved in Corvair
engines by then, I offered to present a forum, which included having William
Wynne and Bob Sutcliffe join us.

One thing leading to another, I found myself presenting an engine forum
every year, as well as helping Don with the event, including arraigning for
the awards dinner.

Several years into my support of the event, Don and I met up at the
Livermore fly-in (another west coast event I usually support by way of
presenting a Corvair engine forum) and discussed the future of Laughlin. The
infrastructure of the airport was declining as the airport was literally
being relocated. By this time I took over editorship of CONTACT! Magazine
and I had a desire to promote an alternative engine related fly-in. I
mentioned this to Don and asked if it would be OK to "piggyback" this new
event on his event. He had no problems with this and thought it was a great
idea.

So from 2004 on, while Don promoted the Mountain State Canard event, I would
promote the Alternative Engine Round-Up ContactMagazine.com/Roundup.html and
continue to support Don's event by helping with the dinner. The last year we
had the event at Laughlin, CONTACT! Magazine paid for the tent and the
potties, as by then, the infrastructure at Laughlin had us relegated to
standing on the tarmac for our meetings, as all the hangars were demolished.

It was then we decided to move it to Jean, with its carpeted and air
conditioned, multi-purpose building (complete with REAL bathrooms and a full
kitchen) and in my estimation, it was a raging success. Being on the
outskirts of LV, as opposed to being in the heart of Laughlin was maybe not
as exciting for those who like to gamble, but the walk to the hotel/casino
and the uncontrolled airspace made up for it in my eyes.

So anyhow, I just read the current issue of the Dragonfly newsletter, where
the editor was kind enough to "advertise" the CONTACT! Magazine event, but
in doing so, he inadvertently wrote that it was, "formally the Mountain
States TW Fly-In", which nothing could be further from the truth.

I'd just like to clear the air and make sure that everyone understands that
BOTH events run concurrently, and one has not taken over the other. And with
that, I'd like to remind everyone that time is running out and that the
cheap prices on hotel rooms will be vanishing soon. The date of the Mountain
State Canard Wing Fly-In is April 27-29. The on-site hotel is the Gold
Strike. www.stopatjean.com/

I just called checked prices for rooms:
Thursday, April 26, $35.95
Friday, April 27, $55.95
Saturday, April 28, $65.95
Sunday, April 29, $35.95

They are nice rooms too, with a view of the airport if you request it.

As we get closer to the event, the room prices will go up to $89.95 on
Saturday, and they will most likely sell-out as they did last year. Then the
options are to stay down the road at Primm, or in LV proper, or some of the
smaller cities and towns around LV, so it's really best to book early.

Thanks!

Pat


Re: Quickie in New Mexico?

wesisberg <wes@...>
 

As someone who bought a flying Q200 two years ago and still haven't
flown, I would strongly recommend your going and talking to
owner/builders. It will save you a lot of time considering things.
(At the Livermore California fly-in last year, someone drove all the
way from Utah.)

These are wonderful planes, but you need to understand the kind of
commitment that is required to build and fly them. There is no manual
for maintenance, parts, owners, or pilots; getting something wrong can
cost you a lot of time, and it will take a lot of time just to find
out what's right, no less to do it. It's key to find people who
actually know what they're talking about, who you can trust, and who
make the time to answer your questions. You will need to establish
yourself with them, so they know they won't be wasting time mentoring
you. At a fly-in you can see the plane, ask your questions, find out
what people think, and build relationships.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking, "Oh, I can get a cool
flying plane for $15,000!" The money is nothing compared to the time.
It's even worse if, like many builders, you invest a ton of time but
don't get in the air. (If you don't have time to drive to the fly-in,
you almost certainly don't have time to build or maintain :)

Wes

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Wesley Hebert" <greenn17h@...> wrote:

Yeah, I was thinking about that, the problem is I'd only be able to
spend the day there, and it's a little far. Who knows, though, I
still might try to go

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@> wrote:

You could join us at one of our annual gatherings and see several
Q's and
maybe get a demo ride or two.

http://www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/

Pat

Hey all, I'm considering buying or building a Q2 withen the next
year
or 2. I'm currently in Albuquerque until May, and was wondering if
there was anyone in the area that was willing to give a demo
flight.
Of course I'd be more than willing to pay for fuel and lunch or
whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!


Re: Quickie in New Mexico?

Wesley Hebert
 

Yeah, I was thinking about that, the problem is I'd only be able to
spend the day there, and it's a little far. Who knows, though, I
still might try to go

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:

You could join us at one of our annual gatherings and see several
Q's and
maybe get a demo ride or two.

http://www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/

Pat

Hey all, I'm considering buying or building a Q2 withen the next
year
or 2. I'm currently in Albuquerque until May, and was wondering if
there was anyone in the area that was willing to give a demo
flight.
Of course I'd be more than willing to pay for fuel and lunch or
whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!


Re: Awful News+Dave Richardson

JMasal@...
 

Spent Sunday with Susie Richardson at Stow near Akron. Ceremonies were
teary. D&S were VERY involved with their Presbyterian church. Susie will have lots
of help and comfort with this. She is doing well and was proud to show me a
stack of cards she got... some from you guys. Thanks. Terry and Keith were
able to drive in for the Saturday events to represent Q guys as well. They were
involved with QBA as much as church.

j.



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


Re: Quickie in New Mexico?

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

You could join us at one of our annual gatherings and see several Q's and
maybe get a demo ride or two.

http://www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/

Pat

Hey all, I'm considering buying or building a Q2 withen the next year
or 2. I'm currently in Albuquerque until May, and was wondering if
there was anyone in the area that was willing to give a demo flight.
Of course I'd be more than willing to pay for fuel and lunch or
whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!


Quickie in New Mexico?

Wesley Hebert
 

Hey all, I'm considering buying or building a Q2 withen the next year
or 2. I'm currently in Albuquerque until May, and was wondering if
there was anyone in the area that was willing to give a demo flight.
Of course I'd be more than willing to pay for fuel and lunch or
whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

-WESLEY


Alternative Engine Round-up

Patrick Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Hey Gang!

We there are only 5 weeks until our annual fly-in.
www.ContactMagazine.com/Roundup.html

Time is running out... cheap rooms are selling out.
If you are planning to attend it's best to book your room now.

Thanks!

Pat


Re: Q2 Air foil

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

QAC newsletters 18 and 19 indicate that QAC didn't want to approve heavier
engines on the GU canard, or raise the gross above 1000 lbs. The LS-1 with
carbon spar allowed a gross of 1100 lbs and QAC indicated "We will possibly
increase the gross weight above 1100 lbs after further testing."

For clarity, the "lack of sufficient elevator authority" occurred with rain
on the GU canard, which is a kind of contamination. The LS-1 maintains
lift with water, bugs, whatever; there is some loss of top speed.

Q-2 performance with the Revmaster was OK if you built the plane very
light; most flying Q-2s are around 200 lbs heavier than the factory
demonstrator. One answer is to keep the GU and go to the Jabiru 3300
engine; weight is about the same as the Revmaster 2100 but bring $$$. I
think that's what Paul Spackman did.

Mike Perry

At 07:06 PM 3/18/2007 +0000, Paul Buckley wrote:

As has been pointed out, the GU canard is well able to support the weight
of a heavier engine without sagging, as it is good for 30g. However, it
was the lack of sufficient elevator authority, combined with the heavier
engine, with the GU that was the reason for the move to the LS1. I
believe that the contamination problem solved by the LS1 was a
bonus.....simply co-incidental.


Re: Q2 Air foil

Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Joe Horvath of Revmaster will be at our annual fly-in,
http://www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/
speaking on the R-3000 and will have one on display.

Pat

What is the weight of the 100hp Rev?
It is actually 110HP and weighs 204 lbs with built in 20 amp
alternator and a second alternator driving dual electronic ignition.


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


Re: Q2 Air foil

Larry Severson
 


What is the weight of the 100hp Rev?
It is actually 110HP and weighs 204 lbs with built in 20 amp alternator and a second alternator driving dual electronic ignition.


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


Re: Q2 Air foil

Paul Buckley
 

The GU
canard could not support the additional weight of the heaver engine
on he ground without sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
carbon fibre spar to support the weight and not be susceptible to
contamination.
As has been pointed out, the GU canard is well able to support the weight of a heavier engine without sagging, as it is good for 30g.
However, it was the lack of sufficient elevator authority, combined with the heavier engine, with the GU that was the reason for the move to the LS1.
I believe that the contamination problem solved by the LS1 was a bonus.....simply co-incidental.

What is the weight of the 100hp Rev?

Paul Buckley
Cheshire, England.

Tri-Q200
Still building.................................


----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph M Snow
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 Air foil


Larry,

Thanks for the imput regarding the GU airfoil. However, Eric wanted the Q2 in the conventional gear configuration along with 100 hp.

Joseph

larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:
Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

>Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more
>out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know
>if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them
>an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and
>paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and
>expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im
>kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you
>ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?
>
>Joseph M Snow
><<mailto:1flashq%40ameritech.net>1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,
>
>I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:
>
>The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very
>efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination ,
>e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift.
>Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact.
>And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There
>are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he
>GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage,
>and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie
>Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem
>and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU
>canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine
>on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
>carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to
>contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as
>efficient as the GU; it was more
>draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as
>noticable.
>
>Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut
>the canard at BL
>00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a
>single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the
>pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat
>screamer. Just add vortex generators
>
>Joseph
>
>eric kelsheimer <<mailto:ekelsheimer%40yahoo.com>ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
>Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth
>rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply
>
>---------------------------------
>Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
>in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
>Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
>
>
>

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










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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 17/03/2007 12:33


Re: Q2 Air foil

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Larry,

Thanks for the imput regarding the GU airfoil. However, Eric wanted the Q2 in the conventional gear configuration along with 100 hp.

Joseph

larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:
Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more
out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know
if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them
an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and
paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and
expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im
kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you
ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow
<<mailto:1flashq%40ameritech.net>1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very
efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination ,
e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift.
Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact.
And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There
are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he
GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage,
and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie
Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem
and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU
canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine
on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to
contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as
efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as
noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut
the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a
single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the
pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat
screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <<mailto:ekelsheimer%40yahoo.com>ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth
rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.



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


white and blue foam, Germany

Sebastian Harren <s_harren@...>
 

I was trying to get some foam over here in Germany and since we don't have Aircraft Spruce I was looking for the specs for blue and white foam. I did find dow chemicals in Germany for the blue foam but I am still not sure what the white foam is called and where to get it over here. I was thinking about the glider places but I wanted to double check specs before I went out to buy some. Foam at a sale plane shop over here seems to be pretty expensive. Thanks in advance
Sebastian
Braunschweig, Germany
Q200 - still building

---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.


Re: Q2 Air foil

Larry Severson
 

Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more
out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know
if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them
an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and
paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and
expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im
kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you
ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow
<<mailto:1flashq%40ameritech.net>1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very
efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination ,
e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift.
Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact.
And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There
are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he
GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage,
and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie
Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem
and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU
canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine
on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to
contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as
efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as
noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut
the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a
single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the
pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat
screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <<mailto:ekelsheimer%40yahoo.com>ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth
rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.



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


Re: Q2 Air foil

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Eric,

I want to throw in another disclaimer. I have flown in an Q2 with a GU canard. While I have been a passenger in several Q200's, I cannot say I have been PIC in one. My previous comments are based upon what I have heard and read about he two airfoils. I hope some of the other Q-list people with acual experience will respond, perhaps after his weekend.

Again, I have no idea what to offer. I finally found an early price for a Q2 kit. In the October, 1980 newsletter, the special introductory price was $8995 (if you bought all three packages together). That was a conventional gear Q2. There would be some additional costs for the landing gear components of the Tri-Q. I am still looking for LS1 costs.
Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.


Re: Q2 Air foil

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...>
 

Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.










---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.


Re: Q2 Air foil

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.


Q2 Air foil

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...>
 

Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.