Date   

Re: tail wheel first crazy dangerous?

Jim Patillo
 

Good morning Jeff, I've made well over 1700 tail wheel landings in my Q without incidence, not sure what Mike is saying other than you need around 7.5 to 8 degrees angle of incidence angle on the canard for takeoff and only the tail wheel or angle of tail wheel spring will address this after the canard has been installed. I do not like wheel landing this plane. It's more difficult for a newbe and a lot more dangerous at those hi landing speeds. The issue of tail wheels and cooling was solved long ago. Again, read the archives. Concern yourself more with life safety issues than speed, that comes later. You seem to be preoccupied with speed. Depending to the model, they only go so fast and that has been explored as well. All Q's hit a wall at a certain speed. Get your plane flying, then work on cleaning up the air frame. Further, You asked me about buying some New "old style" Chen Shin tires and I responded with a price but heard no more? Hi Phil, nice to hear from you. You gonna make it to Laughlin next week end? I flew in the rain most of the day yesterday so I have a clean plane to fly. Jim Patillo N46JP Q200+


Re: tail wheel first crazy dangerous?

Phil Lankford
 

Huh?

Phil Lankford


On Mar 29, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Mike Dwyer <q2pilot@...> wrote:

 

8" lower!  The tail wheel sets your ground angle of attack.  With it that much lower it should be impossible to 3 point take off and force all landings to be tail wheel first which is crazy dangerous.

Your cooling question.  No way 3/8 is enough.

Mike Dwyer Q200

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Vimeo Videos: http://goo.gl/bsaLsG
My Website: http://q200.eu.pn/

On Mar 29, 2014 9:18 PM, <kitfoxjeff@...> wrote:
 


Seems that there is a lot of talk on the net about the tail wheels on this plane, but not much on the question of, how much speed will I loose with my new tail wheel? It is a matco assembly that hangs about 8 inches lower than the one that was on when I bought this Q last month. I have not used the plane yet, but it just looks like it is to much drag and probably not worth the speed loss.

 

Any info?

 

 


Re: cowling, air cooling holes

Terry Adams
 

Jeff,
The short answer is to examine what other airplanes in the Qs performance range with R2100 engines have for cooling inlets.  Ask the owners how well the cooling works.  Request info from Revmaster.
The long answer involves calculating the heat generated at X fuel burn, at X speed, on X ambient temperature day, with X heat in the exhaust, with X heat from the cooling fins, X in the oil, airflow volume at X speed through the cooling fins, etc, etc, etc, and I am sure I have left something out.
On my non Q plane I reduced the cooling inlets by ~35% by changing the shape (bell mouth round), streamlining the flow with plenums over the cylinders and guiding the airflow out of the cowl into a low pressure region.
For more information look up Peter Garrison and his design of the Melmoth with information on cooling design.  He points out that reducing inlet size is far less important than controlling airflow out of the cowl.

Terry

On 3/29/2014 6:21 PM, kitfoxjeff@... wrote:
 


The previous owner closed off the air inlet cooling holes about 95% they are now about 3/8 of an inch high by about 6 inches wide. With the Revmaster 2100 is this going to be enough air to cool it? The cut out for the oil cooler is still there and the whole size of the cooler.

 

The plane has 40 hours on it. It apears as if he may have done this because he may have felt that there was enough cooling already? maybe to increase speed a little? I can't reach him to ask him. I wrote letters and tried.

 

How large should these holes be at minimum?



Re: tail wheel

Mike Dwyer
 

8" lower!  The tail wheel sets your ground angle of attack.  With it that much lower it should be impossible to 3 point take off and force all landings to be tail wheel first which is crazy dangerous.

Your cooling question.  No way 3/8 is enough.

Mike Dwyer Q200

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Vimeo Videos: http://goo.gl/bsaLsG
My Website: http://q200.eu.pn/

On Mar 29, 2014 9:18 PM, <kitfoxjeff@...> wrote:
 


Seems that there is a lot of talk on the net about the tail wheels on this plane, but not much on the question of, how much speed will I loose with my new tail wheel? It is a matco assembly that hangs about 8 inches lower than the one that was on when I bought this Q last month. I have not used the plane yet, but it just looks like it is to much drag and probably not worth the speed loss.

 

Any info?

 

 


cowling, air cooling holes

Jeff Sellars
 


The previous owner closed off the air inlet cooling holes about 95% they are now about 3/8 of an inch high by about 6 inches wide. With the Revmaster 2100 is this going to be enough air to cool it? The cut out for the oil cooler is still there and the whole size of the cooler.

 

The plane has 40 hours on it. It apears as if he may have done this because he may have felt that there was enough cooling already? maybe to increase speed a little? I can't reach him to ask him. I wrote letters and tried.

 

How large should these holes be at minimum?


tail wheel

Jeff Sellars
 


Seems that there is a lot of talk on the net about the tail wheels on this plane, but not much on the question of, how much speed will I loose with my new tail wheel? It is a matco assembly that hangs about 8 inches lower than the one that was on when I bought this Q last month. I have not used the plane yet, but it just looks like it is to much drag and probably not worth the speed loss.

 

Any info?

 

 


Sun N Fun Forum

jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Saturday 9:00 in Forum/Education Building
Come one, come all
Jerry Marstall


Re: Max flying Weight++

jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

2x250   can be shoehorned into the cockpit.  Don't interpret that to mean the Revmaster can necessarily safely pull it.

On 3/28/2014 10:48 AM, Martin Skiby wrote:
 

I have a TriQ200 and flew at 1250 GW many times. That is with the LS1 canard.

Not sure on the revmaster version sorry. 1100 sounds about right.

Yes 2 - 250 lbs will fit and it is tight but doable.



Re: Max flying Weight++

Martin Skiby
 

I have a TriQ200 and flew at 1250 GW many times. That is with the LS1 canard.

Not sure on the revmaster version sorry. 1100 sounds about right.

Yes 2 - 250 lbs will fit and it is tight but doable.


Re: I think one danger is the canard stress

Rich Gillen
 

Most of these CAD/CAM Programs like Soildworks/Inventor/etc., have all the different modules built in today, or you can add them. Alibre, was like $100-$150, I think they renamed it Geomagic, said it does every thing Solidworks can do.
 
The 2 part epoxy Plastic is very light weight, like the Blue Foam, but much Stronger, floats, gas does not affect it, you can cast in hard points. You can sand, machine, drill, paint, it. It can also be dyed different colors.
 
Rich
===========================================================================
 

1b

Re: I think one danger is the canard stress

Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:39 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

quickieaircraft

By CAD, I assume you mean FEA, which is good for isotropic materials but isn't the greatest for composite structures. There are some other computer-based analysis approaches that are more appropriate for composite structures like our wings, (see Marc Waddelow analysis for a starting point if you are interested in this). I'm not familiar with the liquid epoxy plastic so someone else will have to comment on that, but I'd expect it to be heavier than the foam.



-Emron
TriQ200 15hrs
 


Barnstormers: QUICKIE • $3,800 • FOR SALE • Quickie Q2 TRI TURBO

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

QUICKIE • $3,800 • FOR SALEQuickie Q2 TRI TURBO was a flyer have most documents low time 80-100hrs Revmaster 2100 with turbo , 3blade warp drive prop 2 Canopy's , towable , removed all paint so that's done some instruments wheel pants and other pants. A medical reason for sale that screwed up my plans for it was registered as 82BD • Contact Tom Speirs, Friend of Owner - located Glenwood Springs, CO USA • Telephone: 970 618 5896 . • Posted March 26, 2014

 

-john-


Re: I think one danger is the canard stress

quickieaircraft
 

By CAD, I assume you mean FEA, which is good for isotropic materials but isn't the greatest for composite structures.  There are some other computer-based analysis approaches that are more appropriate for composite structures like our wings, (see Marc Waddelow analysis for a starting point if you are interested in this).  I'm not familiar with the liquid epoxy plastic so someone else will have to comment on that, but I'd expect it to be heavier than the foam.


-Emron

TriQ200 15hrs


I think one danger is the canard stress

Rich Gillen
 

Hasn't anyone in all these years ever done a Stress Test in CAD of the Carbon Spar, and Canard? I have never read of anyone doing anything to make the Carbon Spar even better. Like maybe filling it with light weight, 2 part liquid Epoxy Plastic, that hardens fast to a solid at room temp, and is very light, like Foam, and is impervious to gas. It's also very cheap. A small reserve gas tank could be cast inside the center of the Spar also. Other area's could be strenghten up with the epoxy plastic also. http://www.payr.com/
 
Rich
 
==============================================
 
So two 250lb guys can fit in? Going to be a tight fit.

I think one danger is the canard stress in a hard landing or taxiing and hit a bump. The canard sees the equivalent of 4Gs when sitting in the ground. A bump on taxi could double that.

Load a Cessna to gross and lift it by the wing tips. You will break the wing.

Mike Dwyer Q200

 


Re: Quickie Q-2 Never Exceed speed

Brad Walker
 


Formally, these speeds are defined by the designer/engineer of the specific airplane.

FAA FAR regulations 23.1505, 23.335, and 23.251 are the formal definitions. These are an excellent starting point if you are going to design your own airplane or changes to an existing airplane.

Obviously as an experimental, you have great latitude to interpret those as you like..

-brad w.



On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM, <Armilite@...> wrote:
 

Mike:
 
When the Q1/Q2s came out, they used like a 18-22hp Onan, and a 65hp VW, to establish max speeds, with those HP. I have never really understood what establishs these max speeds.


Re: Max flying Weight

Dave Dugas
 

Hi Jeff
I hope I'm not too late answering this.  I weigh 175, give or take, and I notice a difference when I have a passenger. My empty weight is 603 and I list my gross at 1100. With the Revmaster at gross weight, the climb rate decreases.  I politely inform a potential passenger that my weight limit is 185 for passengers. You are asking a lot for 65 hp, and according to your post, fuel isn't factored in yet. I added 50 lbs at a time, and at 1100 lbs, I felt comfortable. Take it slow, and good luck. 
Dave D




Sent from Samsung tablet



-------- Original message --------
From kitfoxjeff@...
Date: 03/26/2014 7:58 AM (GMT-05:00)
To Q-LIST@...
Subject [Q-LIST] Max flying Weight


 

Can someone help shed some light on this question? 


How heavy can a Q-2 fly with the LS-1 wing? I have heard 1100 gross, but has anyone gone over that? How much over? 

Is the quickie like many other planes, where as you would just keep your speeds a little higher and let's say another 100 lbs would be ok?

I ask because I weight 250 and most of my friends are around the same weight. My plane is 665 Empty. 

I have a revmaster 2100 stock. 


Re: NTSB - Brinkerhuff

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Max flying Weight

Jeff Sellars
 

Thanks you for you responses. 


Quickie Q-2 Never Exceed speed

Rich Gillen
 

Mike:
 
When the Q1/Q2s came out, they used like a 18-22hp Onan, and a 65hp VW, to establish max speeds, with those HP. I have never really understood what establishs these max speeds. Later Q1/Q2s have used bigger, higher HP engines. A 100/110hp on a Q2, and I have seen a 583(97hp) on a Q1. I believe the top speed posted for a Q2 has been about 235mph. I have never seen a top speed posted for any Q1s that have used the bigger HP engines.
 

Q1 Performance

  • Powerplant: 1 × Onan opposed 4-stroke piston engine, 18 hp (14 kW) at 3,600 rpm
  • Q200 Performance
    Engine Continental 0-200 100 h.p.
    Top Speed 195 mph
    Cruising Speed 165 mph
    Landing Speed 70 mph
     
    Is there an Excel formula you could put in a spreadsheet where you could take a Dyno sheet data, HP at RPMs and plug in known speed? Like some Rotax Dyno sheets are at http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html  like a Stock 277, 503, 582, data is listed there. To show the Speed at say 3500rpms to Max HP/Rpms. So then you could also compare say a Rotax 50hp 503, versus a 65hp 582, versus a 90hp 670.
     
    But yes, it's a good idea to just reduce Drag on your plane to get more speed with the same HP, if you can.
     
    Most of these smaller engines, can also be made to make more HP, which translates into less weight for more HP. Usually as HP goes up, so does Engine Weight. On a 2 Stroke, say a 277UL(26hp) is 72mm x 66mm = 268.8cc. It could be Big Bored to a 78mm x 66mm = 315.5cc, and could probably goes as big as 82mm x 66mm = 348.6cc.Skidoo/Rotax made a Single up to a, 82mm x 70mm = 369.8cc. A Skidoo/Rotax 380HO(62mm x 61mm = 368.4cc) Dynoed 57.26hp at 7000rpms, so at 6500rpms, it should still make about 50hp. A Rotax 377UL(62mm x 61mm) is rated at 35hp at 6500rpms. So if a 277 can be Big Bored to make the same 35-40hp as the bigger engines, you would save 30.3lbs in different engine weights, between a 277UL, and a 377UL/447UL.
     
    277UL(62.9lbs, with B Drive, Electric Start)
    377UL/447UL(93.2lbs, with B Drive, Electric Start)
    503UL(106.2lbs, with B Drive, Electric Start)
    532UL(108.9lbs, with B Drive & Electric Start)
    582UL(108.9lbs, with B Drive & Electric Start)
    618UL(112lbs, with all options)
    912UL(123lbs without Radiators)
     
    Like on a O-200 100hp, you can change the CR, and a CAM, to get more HP, with very little weight change. I believe there is a Valve size upgrade also. Very few people look at Big Boring them engines, or using the newer Engine Coatings, Synthetic Oils, to reduce Heat/Friction, which can also translate into more HP.
     
    O-200 Spec.'s.
  • Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm)
  • Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm)
  • Displacement: 201 in³ (3.29 L)
  • Which Equals 3293.9cc
  •  
    Like on a Rotax 503UL, just Ceramic Coating the Piston Tops, Combustion Chambers, Exhaust Ports, and Wye Pipe, reduced the Temps by 225 degrees. They say to expect about a 20% reduction in temps on average.
     
    Like on HP TV, they Dynoed a New Z28 with all conventual fluids, then drained the (Motor, Tranny, Rear End), and used all Synthetic fluids, and picked up 22hp. I have never seen much Dyno Testing data on the O-200's ever done.
     
    Rich Gillen
    =============================================================================
     

    3a

    Re: Quickie Q-2 Never Exceed speed

    Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:34 am (PDT) . Posted by:

    "Mike Dwyer" planedude_99

    Speed vs power is the cube root of the hp. So say the plane has 65hp and
    goes 140mph. If you up the power to 85hp you got a 30.76% power increase.
    Thats 1.3076 do the cube root and you get 1.09 or 9% speed increase. So
    with 84hp you'd be going 153mph.

     


    Prop Clearance on a Tri Q

    Randy Lewis
     

    I have a Dragonfly with tricycle gear and a Corvair engine.  I know I can run a larger prop than the 52" one I have now as I have 38" from the prop center to the ground.  My question is, what are those of you with tri Q(200 or similar) allowing for ground clearance to the prop?  Is 8" enough?  Currently I only fly off paved runways and expect that to continue.
    Thanks,
    Randy Lewis


    Re: Max flying Weight

    Jim Patillo
     

    To be clear Jeff, I originally set a gross weight of 1320 lbs for N46JP and have flown my plane that way many times over the years. Yes I have a few dimples in the right side of the canard like Sam points out, but I suspect anyone flying a Q tail dragger on a regular basis will say the same. That is not to say you should do it as well, especially knowing nothing about Q planes.

    Every pilot flying a Q has to know their plane intimately and its abilities. Slow down and take this new opportunity carefully. Many before you have come up short and the last thing you want to do is wreck your plane and spend the next few years repairing it or even worse, killing yourself. There is a wealth of information from pilots actually flying Q's on this list, take advantage of it. Telling us what you want to modify before knowing what you are talking about won't get many replies. Its all in the archives!

    Good luck with your project.
    Jim Patillo
    N46JP Q200+

    11681 - 11700 of 53563