Date   

Re: 2014 Field of Dreams Fly-In

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Dave,I have booked airline tickets to Hartford, and will rent a car and drive to Orange. I also booked a room from Thursday night, so I will be on hand to help you set things up on Friday if you need help.

On a related note: I have been talking to a few people off-line most of this year about the full aerodynamic computer modeling of the Q-200 (LS-1 canard) that I have been working on for a few years. This is a  quantitative modeling analysis that I had intended to finish earlier this year and get it out to a few people for review before distributing it widely.  But my timing has slipped, and this delay may present an opportunity to show the study, or at least the meat of it at the FOD, if you have not already booked something technical. I think people there would be quite interested in the findings and they could provide real time feedback for me. If you would like, I can put together a powerpoint with the salient findings and be prepared to present it. I would only need a fairly good digital projector that could hook to my computer (standard VGA) and a screen or white wall.

Let me know if this would appeal to you and if you say yes, how much time you think would be appropriate.

I am looking forward to the FOD, but I could not talk my wife into coming, even with the Yankee Candles enticement, but I will keep working on her for subsequent years.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel , Tri-Q, still building


CONTACT! Magazine's 11th Annual Fly-in

Patrick Panzera
 

Friends,

 

For the past three years we’ve been very fortunate to have our CONTACT! Magazine annual fly-in hosted by the fine people at the Golden West Fly-in (Marysville California), who rolled out the red carpet for us. But each year the weather seemed to not want to cooperate. Last year we had a record-shattering heat wave, and the year before that we had 40 mph winds with low temps to match.

Each of these weather-related issues kept people from showing up, so our numbers have been slowly declining while they should be rising exponentially. So in the last issue I made mention of a few places we were considering, one such place being French Valley Airport (F70), near Temecula California. Not long after that I received an email from the French Valley EAA chapter (Pietenpol builders!) offering their full assistance. Long story short, I paid them a visit and they voted to help us all they can.

 

So with that, I’m pleased to announce that on Saturday September 27, 2014, we’ll be hosting our 11th annual Alternative Engine and Experimental Aircraft Round-Up at French Valley Airport. The event will have a soft start on Friday, Sept 26th, as we receive and welcome arrivals. On Saturday we’ll have a day of educational forums and lots of cool stuff to see on the ramp. We’ll have a nice catered dinner that evening, and the next day we’ll be there to help those who flew in to get home safely.

 

None of the details are set in stone (except the date and the place) but we plan to have easy access from the parking lot to the forums for those who drive in, and plenty of ground support (including transportation to and from motels) for those who fly-in. The uncontrolled field has a beautifully paved 6000’ x 75’ lighted runway, lots of tiedown space, and even a few vacant hangars that can be rented by the day for those who wish to keep their planes inside overnight. Additionally, there’s a very nice restaurant on the field. For more information, please visit our website:

http://www.contactmagazine.com/roundup.html

(still a work in progress)

 

And if you’d like to display your plane, present an educational forum, offer assistance or even display a product, please let me know as soon as possible. You can reach me best by email:

 

Editor@... or by my calling office phone number during normal business hours:

559-584-3306

 

We hope to see you there!

 

I’d also like to take a moment to let you know that we are about to deliver our special, 85th Pietenpol anniversary issue of CONTACT! Magazine, and to thank all of you who were at the Brodhead Pietenpol gathering or AirVenture and either bought the single issue or went the distance and subscribed to CONTACT!

 

And I'd especially like to thank ALL who participated in the making of this issue. If it wasn't for their generosity of information, we wouldn't have this awesome issue. It was our great pleasure to work with these individuals that helped us create this special 32 page issue filled with Pietenpol articles. Here’s a link to the cover image:

http://tinyurl.com/CM-Issue108

 

Here’s the table of contents:

 

•Dan Helsper’s Ford A Powered Pietenpol.— Oscar Zuniga introduces us to a special Pietenpol built by Dan Helsper, who did his best to stick to the plans wherever practical, including the engine.

 

•Ol’ Tattered Wingtips.— Pietenpol patriarch Donald “Doc” Mosher tells of some of the inside tips that help fill in the gaps left in the various Pietenpol plan sets currently available.

 

•Got Gas?— Steve Williamson, President of EAA Chapter 1279 based at French Valley Airport, gives us a little insight into the traps that can arise when building a plane as a chapter, and details the fuel system in the Pietenpol they built.

 

•1937 Pietenpol Air Camper NX308MB— Gary Boothe shares his story of building this simple yet elegant version of Bernard Pietenpol’s Corvair-powered Air Camper, as a tribute to his father.

 

•Greg Bacon’s Turbo Subaru EA-82T Pietenpol Air Camper— Oscar Zuniga presents the tale of “Mountain Piet,” a straightforward incarnation designed to be flown from a field in Colorado with a summertime density altitude approaching 11,000 feet.

 

•Chris Rusch’s “MitsuPIETshi” Air Camper— Oscar Zuniga highlights some of the many details that make this Air Camper unique, including the Mitsubishi forklift engine that was overhauled before being adapted to its new chore of powering a classic bird.

 

•11th Annual Alternative Engine Round-Up— The fine people from EAA Chapter 1279 have stepped up and offered to cohost our annual fly-in. This year;s event will be held on Saturday, September 27th at the French Valley Airport near Temecula California.

 

If you’re interested in receiving CONTACT! Magazine, please contact us by phone, e-mail, or just simply drop a check in the mail to us and we’ll enter you into our database just in time to receive this issue. The link to our subscription page is at the very bottom of this note.

 

Please remember that CONTACT! Magazine is a recognized 501(c)3 non-profit, educational resource. We publish CONTACT! not as a moneymaking endeavor, but rather as a labor of love- love for experimental aviation.

 

As previously stated, we just returned from a very successful trip to the Brodhead Pietenpol gathering and Oshkosh. We met some great people with some new products and interesting planes that we’ll be writing about in upcoming issues and I know you won’t want to miss out.

 

Additionally, we finally picked up the full-color version of Alternative Engines Volume 4 from the printer just before I left for OSH. I had a good supply of them at Brodhead and AirVenture and totally sold out by the third day. While I was away at the show, my wife Veronica mailed out several hundred to those who were kind enough to preorder so that we would have the funds to self-publish. She’s still not done so if you preordered and haven’t received yours yet, hang in there a few more weeks. If you haven’t ordered yours yet, now is the time to do it!

 

We’ve had the less expensive black and white version in stock for quite a while now and they’re always available. If you’d like to know more about the book, please visit:

www.contactmagazine.com/Vol4tableofcontents.html

 

Here’s an electronic version preview of Volume 4:

http://issuu.com/contact.magazine/docs/alternative_engines_volume_4_previe

 

If you’d like just the current, all Pietenpol issue- that can be ordered by following the directions at the bottom of this page:

http://www.contactmagazine.com/backissu.html

Please note that this page hasn’t been updated in a little over a year and does not include all the most recent issues, including the all-Pietenpol issue. Just be sure to ask for issue #108 when you order.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Patrick Panzera, Editor

 

Editor@...

 

If you’d like to follow us on Facebook, please visit:

www.facebook.com/www.CONTACTMagazine

We update that site nearly daily with news and information relevant to experimental aviation.

 

…and for subscription information please visit:

http://www.contactmagazine.com/subscrip.html

 

 


Re: Good Progress Report

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Good Progress Report

Jerry Marstall
 

This is getting exciting. J

On Aug 17, 2014 6:07 PM, "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Haven't hit my blog yet, but today I finally started the engine!  Yes!

I pushed it out and tied the tail to my car, per Sam. The first time I tried to start it, when I pushed the button, there was just a click.  Clidk, click, click. I finally gave up and pushed it back into the hangar.

After much searching around I found the connector wire that goes to the started solenoid was off the tab. Since the started is buried in the firewall, I thought I would have to pull the engine to hook it up. But since I don't have a left magneto, I was able to wiggle my arm through that little opening and get it connected.  Yea baby! Maybe I'll take a selfie of that action.

Pushed it back out and tied it down again. It started up just fine and sounded strong! Ran it for a few minutes..

I pushed it back in and solved a little brake issue I was having and one of the rocker covers was leaking oil. After fixing that stuff I pushed it out for a second go.  This time I didn't tie it down, but actually taxied it around a bit!  Did several U-turns and figure eights out on the ramp.  It seems to handle just fine. I celebrated by putting another 15 gallons of gas in.

Looks like I'm on my way.

Sam


Good Progress Report

Sam Hoskins
 

Haven't hit my blog yet, but today I finally started the engine!  Yes!

I pushed it out and tied the tail to my car, per Sam. The first time I tried to start it, when I pushed the button, there was just a click.  Clidk, click, click. I finally gave up and pushed it back into the hangar.

After much searching around I found the connector wire that goes to the started solenoid was off the tab. Since the started is buried in the firewall, I thought I would have to pull the engine to hook it up. But since I don't have a left magneto, I was able to wiggle my arm through that little opening and get it connected.  Yea baby! Maybe I'll take a selfie of that action.

Pushed it back out and tied it down again. It started up just fine and sounded strong! Ran it for a few minutes..

I pushed it back in and solved a little brake issue I was having and one of the rocker covers was leaking oil. After fixing that stuff I pushed it out for a second go.  This time I didn't tie it down, but actually taxied it around a bit!  Did several U-turns and figure eights out on the ramp.  It seems to handle just fine. I celebrated by putting another 15 gallons of gas in.

Looks like I'm on my way.

Sam


Barnstormer: QUICKIE2 PROJECT ON A TRAILER • $3,000 • FOR IMMEDIATE SALE

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

QUICKIE2 PROJECT ON A TRAILER • $3,000 • FOR IMMEDIATE SALEQuickie Q2 kit on a trailer, complete including all parts, plans, engine, fastened down and ready to go. Forward and rear wings plus ailerons and trim tab ready for final finish. Includes 14' x 3' base for manufacture. All components have been stored indoors. Trailer is a house trailer base, total weight with kit estimated at 1600 lbs., 28 ft by 8 ft., tows easily by SUV or pickup. Includes covers. Available less trailer. Located in Toronto, Ontario area. $3000 or best offer. • View Details at Barnstormers.Com

 

-john-


Re: Q220?

One Sky Dog
 

Correction 1980 


On Aug 12, 2014, at 7:04 PM, "Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

So the answer to why the Dragonfly has so much more wing area is simply 'because that's what Bob Walters wanted'? If so, I can live with that answer.

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Bob (Desert Bob) Johnson
 

That would be 1981 at Oshkosh.

Bob Johnson,

Ogden, Utah



From: "Builders, Quickie"
To: "Builders, Quickie"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:04:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q220?

 

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ



Re: Q220?

One Sky Dog
 

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

One Sky Dog
 

Jim,

Lots of options and the Q started it all. Not trying to take anything away from the Q design. We all know the Dragonfly design comes from the Q1 design. You have to admit big guys fit better in    Dragonflies.

Wingman,

Charlie


On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:51 AM, "logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Dave,All that said, there is no beating a Q200/0200 for fast, efficient performance. Not your daddy's airplane! And further, the Q200 is a much sleeker design that the Dragonfly because of the pre-molded fuselage sections. I'm only biased because I've flown one safe and consistently since 2000 with no major issues.Consider buying one and converting it to a single seat Q200. You'll have alot more head/arm room if you're sitting in the middle.Jim PatilloN46JP Q200Lotsahours


Re: Q220?

Rich Gillen
 

 
While Scaling any thing up, will affect the Drag, and Weight, of the Aircraft, you can compensate for it, with using lighter weight materials(Carbon vs Fiberglass), and adding HP. Since these Q2/Q200s were originally made for a 65hp VW engine. Scaling it up, say 10%, shouldn't affect it that drastically. An 0-200 can be upgraded in HP, with a CAM, and high CR Pistons. It would be best, to 3D Model the plane, than Scale it up to fit you, if needed. It's possible, to change the insides to maybe fit you also. The Canopie could be molded different, the seat could maybe be redesigned, lowered. Single, versus Dual Controls.
 
The Dragonfly, is a similar plane, but with a wider seat area.
 
Rich Gillen
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1a

Q220?

Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:23 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Dave Covert" ydavecove

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I
love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to
hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down.

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and
shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic
results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10 (thus
the Q220, get it?) Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with
little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of
the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Rich Gillen
 

While scaling any thing up, will affect the Drag, and Weight, of the Aircraft, you can compensate for it, with using lighter weight materials(Carbon vs Fiberglass), and adding HP. Since these Q2s were originally made for a 65hp VW engine. Scaling it up say 10%, shouldn't affect it that drastcally. A 0-200 cand be upgraded in HP with a CAM
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1a

Q220?

Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:23 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Dave Covert" ydavecove

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I
love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to
hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down.

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and
shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic
results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10 (thus
the Q220, get it?) Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with
little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of
the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Jim Patillo
 

Dave,All that said, there is no beating a Q200/0200 for fast, efficient performance. Not your daddy's airplane! And further, the Q200 is a much sleeker design that the Dragonfly because of the pre-molded fuselage sections. I'm only biased because I've flown one safe and consistently since 2000 with no major issues.Consider buying one and converting it to a single seat Q200. You'll have alot more head/arm room if you're sitting in the middle.Jim PatilloN46JP Q200Lotsahours


Re: Q220?

One Sky Dog
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

I think I would get tired of seeing the same old scene off my left wingtip...  Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Bank left?

Phil Lankford




Re: Q220?

britmcman99
 

Bank left?

Phil Lankford


On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:49 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Re: Q220?

One Sky Dog
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ

12781 - 12800 of 55028