Hi Martin,

Having worked for United Airlines, I learned along time ago............its about horsepower. When our first 747 showed up in 1971, it was about horsepower. You can make a box go supersonic if you put enough HP to it.

We've all known Klaus, Catto and Lippse for a very long time. When I say we've hit a wall, I mean we've hit a wall with 100-120 HP. I think cleaning up our airframes (and thats relatively cheap) will help but not that much. The plennum is a great way to clean up drag and the new style props are another.

I think if you check, Klaus is running above 4,000 RPM when racing as well as having a clean airframe and much more Horsepower.

Over the years we've seen many builders come and go. They've had vision but where are they today. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding! You build it, test it, prove it out and we will come.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




--- In Q-LIST@..., "Martin" <mskiby@> wrote:

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@> wrote:

Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building

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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@> wrote:

Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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

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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:

Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:

Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Jim,
The plane is pretty much together. The last position light was wired in
today and the landing light was final mounted and the lens put on.

The panel has to come off to be anodized and then the switch harness can
be put in and a couple of more wires in the panel and it is done. I will
then put power to the circuits for checkout do final timing, WT & balance then
ready to start.

Getting Closer,
Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah

Watch your 6 KB


In a message dated 1/1/2011 12:01:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
logistics_engineering@... writes:


Charlie, you are right. They do become lawn darts when pointed straight
down. The max speed my airframe has ever seen is around 240 mph during
testing.

Are you running your new engine yet?
JP



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

Jim

No need to get so ansy.

I made it quite clear I was talking aero, and you brought in ground handling, in my book they are two different things.

Your happy with your show plane, I'm happy with my "backyard special" and if you think I have any dangley bits, you are mistaken.

Each to their own.

Flying as soon as I can.

Clive.......gobxoy


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@> wrote:

Happy New Year Clive,

I'm not confusing anything aero or othewize, please reread my email. As soon as anyone demonstrates they can consistantly cruise their Q at 200 MPH + I'll be all over it. BTW, the JimBob Six Pack has proven itself over and over for many years now. At this stage, people either get it or they don't. So you can dangle what ever you want from the back and its OK.

You are correct, my plane weighs 775 lbs. If you ever saw it up close and personal you would understand why. I built it with the intention of having a fast, clean looking show plane and that's what I got. I wanted a production looking airplane, not one that looked like it was hatched in a back yard. In retrospect, I would have done it the same way.

Best regards and now.............. go FLY!

Jim Patillo
N46JP
Q200

P.S.Flew to Truckee, CA (Reno)in the Sierras yesterday. Lots of snow in them thar hills.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Hi Jim

Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)

Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.

It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as possible.

Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal prefrence.

The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground angle.

When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.

I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.

Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop arc hurts them alot.

If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's critical how about horse power?

Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get there.

Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.

BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775 lbs empty?

Happy new year

Clive ... Gobxoy


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@> wrote:

Hi Clive,

Me and many others have had that "aftermarket" tailwheel installed for a very long time and as far as I know everyone flying it, is happy. I haven't heard one complaint. For me, I'm willing to trade a couple of knots for convienence. "Turns on one main (with dual brakes), unlatching the full swivel allows the plane to be handled much more easily on the ground, also allows for canard incidence adjustment, more beefy and better control down the runway.

The video Sam provided shows "things" laid across the airstream and I can see that drag, but what happens when you turn that rod in line and flow air over it lengthwize? What kind of drag does that create? NOT MUCH. The vertical area of the tailwheel on the other hand does create drag but so does the original tailwheel.

There's no doubt drag is critical but if it's ones goal to have the lightest and cleanest Q in the air, one should start that concept from the first layup, not at the end of the project. Again, given the available engines and HP, I believe this plane hits the wall at around 215-220 MPH no matter what you do. Unlike Klaus' EZE , this airframe is not nearly as clean. If Sam or anyone else for that matter ever goes faster than that, I'm all ears.

Merry Christmas

Jim Patillo - Going out for another flight over Yosemite this AM. Its beautiful up there. We're really fortunate out here with all the great flying days.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Nice one Sam,

That certainly puts drag into perspective.

Looks those aftermarket tails wheels that hang down are a high drag item.

Merry Christmas all.

Clive Gobxoy

--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up -- if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry

Try _http://www.langair.com/index.html_ (http://www.langair.com/index.html)
he will build what ever you want with proper material and heat treat.

Terry Crouch



In a message dated 12/31/2010 8:53:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mskiby@... writes:

I know this one has been talked about a bunch. Can someone tell me where
the best place would be to get a steel tail spring for a Q200? I looked at
the Great planes site and they have one that looks ok. I had one years ago
that we removed from my first q200 when doing the Tri Gear conversion, but I
can't find the darn thing!

Thanks team.






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

Happy New Year to everyone.
I recall hearing that in 2010 there would be a great multitude of first flights. I am still listening!!! I can't hear you!!!
I am sure none of our group has a hangover today, so get your asses out in the shop and get to work!!
MUST I NAME NAMES? I THINK WE KNOW WHO WE ARE!
Wishing everyone all the best in 2011. Seriously, get the damned thing done. It is great fun. If you need any help, just ask, someone will respond.
This is the year to FLY. Were not getting any younger!!!!!!

Warmest Regards,

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 194 hrs
Luana, IA.

Happy New Year Kevin, Thanks for the prod. My Q-200 is on short final.
The exhaust is finished but I have not run the engine with it yet. I ran
the engine for about 15 minutes with stub stacks a while back and it ran
very well. Cabin heat muff and carb heat muff completed and installed. The
last thing to do is connect the cowl openings to the plenums via some yet
to be conceived genius method that will allow easy removal and
installation of the cowling without having to hook up or connect anything
like scat hose. It's mooie freo in the unheated garage and I got bogged
down installing replacement windows (10) in my house. Then came the
holidays and my son's college graduation etc etc. We all have excuses
when necessary.


I think that I know what I'm going to do with the plenum thing and I'll do
it in the basement this week. Still need to placard everything in the
cockpit and do weight and balance. I've scoped out Tulip City airport and
their generous 6000 ft runway that's wide and traffic free. My IA buddy
has scales and lead weight for ballast if needed. My Swift pilot friend
has access to a suitable trailer and I have conceived an idea for a really
slick trailer should time permit which I'm sure it won't. Slick trailer
goes on the "things to improve" list to do after it flies.That list is
about 10 items long now and growing. And then there's the collection of
paperwork and stuff for the FAA to be satisfied.


Joseph sounds like he's proceeding nicely as is Sanjay so I'm behind but
not by much. Should be a good year for first flights by the way this
sounds eh? Happy New Year to you all and thanks for the support. Probably
would not have made it this far without everyones sage advice. Jerry
Brinkerhuff Q 200 Registered N2935R





-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 9:05 am
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] New Years


That a way Joseph.
Lead the way, and others will follow. Hopefully my admonishment will light
some
fires. Alan? Sam? Darrell? Sanjay? Jerry?Jon?
Seven new planes in 2011?
Couldn't help myself. :>))))
Kevin
On Jan 1, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Joseph M Snow wrote:

Hi Kevin,

I am moving up to high speed taxiing. Does 47 & 46 MPH qualify....? I
guss

not. Sam said I needed to do 50 mph while staying on the centerline.
And. I
want to feel confident I can do it repeatedly. You are driving a
Tri-fear; I am
doing a taildragger... I want to check my main wheels next week for any
looseness and I have an oil leak at the right valve cover... Soon.

Joseph Snow
Q2xx, N240JS
Eculid, Ohio
www.corvairq.info

--- On Sat, 1/1/11, Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...> wrote:

From: Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
Subject: [Q-LIST] New Years
To: Q-LIST@...
Date: Saturday, January 1, 2011, 10:12 AM



Happy New Year to everyone.
I recall hearing that in 2010 there would be a great multitude of first

flights. I am still listening!!! I can't hear you!!!

I am sure none of our group has a hangover today, so get your asses out
in the

shop and get to work!!

MUST I NAME NAMES? I THINK WE KNOW WHO WE ARE!
Wishing everyone all the best in 2011. Seriously, get the damned thing
done.

It is great fun. If you need any help, just ask, someone will respond.

This is the year to FLY. Were not getting any younger!!!!!!

Warmest Regards,

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 194 hrs
Luana, IA.

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Kevin,

I am moving up to high speed taxiing. Does 47 & 46 MPH qualify....? I guss

Joseph Snow
Q2xx, N240JS
Eculid, Ohio
www.corvairq.info

--- On Sat, 1/1/11, Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...> wrote:

From: Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
Subject: [Q-LIST] New Years
To: Q-LIST@...
Date: Saturday, January 1, 2011, 10:12 AM



Happy New Year to everyone.
I recall hearing that in 2010 there would be a great multitude of first

I am sure none of our group has a hangover today, so get your asses out in the

MUST I NAME NAMES? I THINK WE KNOW WHO WE ARE!
Wishing everyone all the best in 2011. Seriously, get the damned thing done.

This is the year to FLY. Were not getting any younger!!!!!!

Warmest Regards,

Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 194 hrs
Luana, IA.

Clive,

Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/
Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I think
the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180 indicated
in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp. Low drag
and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning plane. Just my
$.02 and opinion not backed by facts.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson, Dragonfly builder
Ogden, Utah


In a message dated 1/1/2011 4:38:50 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
gobxoy@... writes:

There's no doubt drag is critical but if it's ones goal to have the

lightest and cleanest Q in the air, one should start that concept from the
first layup, not at the end of the project. Again, given the available engines
and HP, I believe this plane hits the wall at around 215-220 MPH no matter
what you do. Unlike Klaus' EZE , this airframe is not nearly as clean. If
Sam or anyone else for that matter ever goes faster than that, I'm all ears.

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

Hi Jim

Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)

Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.

It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as possible.

Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal prefrence.

The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground angle.

When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.

I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.

Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop arc hurts them alot.

If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's critical how about horse power?

Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get there.

Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.

BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775 lbs empty?

Happy new year

Clive ... Gobxoy


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim P" <logistics_engineering@> wrote:

Hi Clive,

Me and many others have had that "aftermarket" tailwheel installed for a very long time and as far as I know everyone flying it, is happy. I haven't heard one complaint. For me, I'm willing to trade a couple of knots for convienence. "Turns on one main (with dual brakes), unlatching the full swivel allows the plane to be handled much more easily on the ground, also allows for canard incidence adjustment, more beefy and better control down the runway.

The video Sam provided shows "things" laid across the airstream and I can see that drag, but what happens when you turn that rod in line and flow air over it lengthwize? What kind of drag does that create? NOT MUCH. The vertical area of the tailwheel on the other hand does create drag but so does the original tailwheel.

There's no doubt drag is critical but if it's ones goal to have the lightest and cleanest Q in the air, one should start that concept from the first layup, not at the end of the project. Again, given the available engines and HP, I believe this plane hits the wall at around 215-220 MPH no matter what you do. Unlike Klaus' EZE , this airframe is not nearly as clean. If Sam or anyone else for that matter ever goes faster than that, I'm all ears.

Merry Christmas

Jim Patillo - Going out for another flight over Yosemite this AM. Its beautiful up there. We're really fortunate out here with all the great flying days.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> wrote:

Nice one Sam,

That certainly puts drag into perspective.

Looks those aftermarket tails wheels that hang down are a high drag item.

Merry Christmas all.

Clive Gobxoy

--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up -- if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry