Date   

Re: Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Rich Gillen
 

 
Jon:
 
Is that $12,500 your engine budget, or total plane budget?

2c

Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:47 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"Jon Matcho" jmatcho

Rich wrote:

>What is the highest TBO of any Revmaster 2300 flying, that you have found in your research? How many have you found, that are really flying?

I have only found a few and, as I wrote, there have been no complaints or quirks with the 2300 unlike all other auto conversions. TBO is TBD.

======> That's what happens when you just have a few, really flying them. Till you see someone( I would like to see at least a 100 engines), really making some high hours on one, I would save my money, and wait, unless you like being these Companies Test Pilot. All of these Companies/Engine Builders can Test there own engines to prove them. Even on a Test Stand, you can simulate flying rpms. What's it cost to run a R-2300 GPH for just a 500hr test to really prove it? Let's just say 5 GPH at criuse rpms, 500hrs x 5GPH = 2500gals. 2500gals x $3.75 for 91octane = $9375. A torture test could be run 24/7 till done. 500/24= 20.8 days. These People/Manufactures, want YOU, to be there Test Pilot. Like I told one 2 Stroke builder, get some hrs on your engine, to really prove it makes 450hrs, 600hrs, etc. Even if you have to donate your time, and do a rebuild for free for someone local, who may volinteer to fly it. Find a farmer/business who runs a water/air pump/generator continiously for many hrs, who can document the hrs run. But if you like being someones Test Pilot, by all means, jump right in. A Military 10kw generator use's a 084 small Continetal that turns I believe 3400rpms countinious, hooked direct drive. In a plane it's rated around 45-46hp. Many people have gotten well over a 1000hrs on them flying. Any of these People/Companies could hook a VW/Subaru/Corvair/Mazda, etc., to do some testing on there own. They could use the generator to power something to recoupe some of there Investment. But most don't, they want You, to be there Tester.

>For $8000, I would rebuild a used O-200 core engine, and have a 100hp+ engine...

That's another option, with the upside that running Q200s have higher resale value than "those unreliable auto conversions".

=======> Sadly, most Qs/Dragonflys, and other Kitplanes, don't have a High Resale value. You could probably buy a Q200/Dragonfly with a O-200 for $10,000 to $18,000 and be flying. I believe a Q2 kit cost around $9000 new, before they went out of business. Many years ago, I passed on a TriQ200 for $8000 asking price, mainly because it had sat for 5 years without being started, or even turned over. I didn't know much about the O-200 back then, but that it was expensive to rebuild. Like you, I was figuring I might have to spend another $12,000 to get the engine rebuilt, and another $3000 to get the plane the way I wanted it. So $8000+$12,000+$3000 = $23,000. For $23,000 back then, I could have bought a nice used Cessna.

The Revmaster 2300 just about cannot be called an auto conversion at this point. There are hardly any parts left from an actual VW in it with all its purpose-built proprietary parts. I don't see at all why it shouldn't be a consideration for new Q2 builds. Isn't the point of the Quickie to be affordable and approachable? Oh yeah, and safe.
========> No, we call it an Experimental HD Engine, till it has proven to make at least a 1000+ Flying hrs. The point of any Kitplane, is to make it more affordable to the people who can't afford a new $180,000 Cessna 172. In todays $$$, a $9000 kit plane in 1980 would cost $28,000+ today. You still have to buy the engine, Instruments, etc.

>Building any of these engines, isn't Rocket Science! There are books, videos, etc., to learn how, and what to do.

True. A Long-EZ flyer made an impression on me when talking about his Lycoming. He asked, "Did you ever rebuild a lawnmower engine?" "Yes", I replied. "Well then you can handle these engines."
=====> Thats True, but you probably had the tools to work on the lawn mower engine, the O-200, Rotax's, etc. do require some special tools to work on them, and the parts are 3-5 times as much for just a Rotax. :)

>(Regarding whether you would trust that C90 CAD model)

>Yes, I would, he is a Russian Engineering Student. That model was for his finals. But before spending any $$$ making anything, I would always double check the part to be made.

My point was how much "double checking" this student did. I assume he had a C90 in-hand and measured each and every single part with a micrometer. You also have to assume that the C90 he used was unmodified and up to factory tolerances (perfect overhaul). Making that leap of faith and then machining something requires knowing what metal formulations are needed (certainly possible, but much more work). After machining you'll have a part that is 0.5mm larger/smaller than the one you're comparing with -- all parts will NOT be the same size as the factory castings (whatever those sizes officially are). Make another leap of faith, put the whole thing together, and fly. Now that would be an absolute remarkable achievement that I would love to read about. The model is impressive in its own right.
=======> I assumed, you would be CNC/Machining it, for yourself, and compare the 3D Model to new parts. He has done the hard part, 3D Modeling it. You, can tweak it, to your own Spec's if you want. You can use different Bores, Strokes, Fuel Injection, Change Cams, or you can even retrofit it, with HD RACING parts from other engines, but that takes a lot of time. Just like you can change over from Black Rubber O-rings that melt at 200 degrees if you put them in a fry pan, or use the new High Temp ones that won't melt till 500 degrees. Any Engine, can be improved upon. Even the O-200. Contenetal can't do it much without having to go through recertification, but you can. You wouldn't be making every part, just the big ticket items, if you can. Building these engines isn't rocket science, and neither is making the parts. You have kids/adults CNC machining AR15 Recievers, Turbine Blades, etc., on Youtube, on small hobby cnc mills. Used Industrial CNC mills, and lathes are cheap, $2000 to $8000. A Billet Skidoo/Polaris/Yamaha/Arctic Cat, Race head, cost $400 on ebay. A Rotax 582UL cast head cost $820. A block of 6061 AL, 7" x 11" x 2", on ebay sells for about $25-$30 on ebay. Granted, for a one off, it would be cheaper/faster to just buy the NOS/Used parts. But if, your a machinist, with connections to the right CNC stuff, or even bought used stuff, and know enough about CAD, you could make some of your own parts. You can always resell the tools. I was at a Car show 2 years ago, and a big Manufacture of RACE Car parts had all of them laid out on his table to view. I picked up a CAM, and asked him what the cost was, well a standard Hyd Cam starts out around $50, a Solid Cam is about $90, and a roller cam is around $300. I asked him, what if he could get $1800 for it, he laughed, what are you talking about. I said, something your not even thinking about, that's what I had heard a O-200 Cam cost. Now, do you really think that $300 HD Roller Cam going into a Hemi/Chevy SB/BB turning maybe 12,000rpms, is made any less, than a O-200 Cam turning 2750rpms? With the 3D model, you might find a CAM from another 4/6/8 cylinder that might work, or could be adpated. Take just that C90 CAM from the 3D model, and send it to one of the Big Race Car CAM makers, and get a quote to have one made. They make CAMs Special order, just like any Piston maker does. Then get a current O-200 Cam price.

>Just My Opinion

Same. I am not looking to build and fly a proven airframe-engine combination without excessive re-engineering. I consider these the options for ME at this point (no discredit whatsoever to anyone who's suggested or favored anything else -- go for it):

1) Q200 with rebuilt Continental O-200   <----- The Best choice. Research that parts lists, you might be surprized what you could build for $8000 or less, even making some updates.

2) Q2 with a new Revmaster 2300

3) Q2 with updated Revmaster 2100 (done by Revmaster)

Many other engines are appealing and viable, but I don't want to afford them and/or do the one-off work required.

Thanks everyone for all your feedback and patience from this "newbie". Off to do something... :-)

Jon

Rich
 


Re: Q2 LS1 Carbon spar?

David J. Gall
 

Paul B.,


Please stop implying that the Waddelow canard is a stock LS-1 canard minus the carbon spars. Further, please stop implying that such a canard would be airworthy, regardless of whether Mark Waddelow had anything to do with it. Someone could die following this "advice."


Mark Waddelow did an engineering analysis of the original GU canard and reported to the Quickie Builders Association that he believed that the GU canard layup schedule was inadequate for the design. He recommended a revised layup schedule. He also designed a 236-inch span canard to replace the 200-inch "factory" unit. He died in an unrelated incident before building (completing) either.


I am not aware that Mark Waddelow ever made mention of the LS-1 canard or the factory LS-1 spars before his untimely death, but I am certain that if he had undertaken an engineering analysis of the LS-1 canard in a Tri-Q he would not have drawn the conclusion you assert. Even just a cursory glance at the layup schedule for the LS-1 canard makes it glaringly evident that the SINGLE spanwise UNI ply (and two +-45° UNI plies) would be totally inadequate for flight loads of a Tri-Q.


Casual inspection of the Tr-Q conversion plans written by Scott Swing and available on Quickheads.com (thanks to Dan Yager) supports that conclusion by revealing that the Tri-Q GU canard conversion calls for no less than 10 spanwise plies of UNI to repair the necessary cut in the GU canard needed to remove the anhedral. Likewise, the Tr-Q conversion plans call for exact duplication of the original factory layup schedule (including retaining the carbon spar) to repair the cut to the LS-1 canard required in order to remove the anhedral.


Any other "reduction" of structure, such as leaving out the spars, would be foolhardy.


Generally, root bending moments are the controlling factor in wing (canard) structural design. The bending moment at the root of the Q2/Q200 canard is approximately the same for flight loads (4g) as it is for ground loads, hence, the structure must be the same regardless of whether or not it is "subject to landing loads."


Perhaps you have confused the Waddelow canard with the Weishaar LS-1 canard which does not, in fact, use the factory-supplied round, tapered carbon spars. If so, then be advised that the Weishaar canard does, indeed, use a carbon spar, just not the round carbon spars from the Quickie factory. The Weishaar LS-1 canard does not "dispense with" the factory carbon spar because the Weishaar LS-1 canard was actually designed before the factory LS-1 canard and it's round carbon spars. The Weishaar canard has a hand-layup rectangular cross-section carbon spar.


David J. Gall


Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Rich Gillen
 

Charlie:
 
Your correct. I didn't even see a TBO, let alone a Projected TBO for that R-2300 engine. Till you have some of them engines, actually making 500, 1000, 1500, 2000hrs, you don't really have any idea, what your getting for that $8000. Joe, and the other Manufactures/Builders can say what they want, I like to see the facts, which are Flying Hrs. Just like Hirth's claim of a 1000hr TBO at 75% power on all of their engines. Show me (1) Hirth engine, that has made that 1000hr TBO mark. At least the O-200, was Certified to establish that 2000hr TBO for your $22,000 New, investment.
 
What's the highest Flying hr:
Subaru = ????hr Probably John Finley
Corvair =
Mazda =
VW =
Jabaru =
Rotax 912 =
Rotax 582UL = I have seen 1300hrs and still flying. Both use lower max rpms. The 582UL guy takes off at Max 5500rpms. New 582UL motors are around $5534 today from Lockwood.
Rotax 503UL = I have seen 1300hrs and still flying.
etc?
 
A guy e-mailed off list, he has 500hrs on his Subaru EA81 with a Turbo, using it in direct drive configuration on a Dragonfly. Didn't say what HP he was making at them Direct Drive RPMS. I would guess 55-60hp at those low Direct Drive rpms with a Turbo. His engine cost him to build $3000. Even at 2000hr/500hr = 4, $3000x4= $12,000 he is ahead of the $$$ game. $22,000 new vs $12,000 used/rebuilt. But you also have to factor in all your down time doing those rebuilds.
 
Charlie, there is a lot of NEW, NOS(New Old Stock), parts on ebay, and Barnstormers, etc. The Big Expensive parts like the Case, Crank, CAM, etc., can all be rebuilt. Most of the high wear parts will be all replaced with new parts. If the used parts make spec., they can be reused. Since it's for an Experimental, you can use aftermarket parts also. That PDF I gave a link to, gave a list of every part to O Time a O-200.
 
On Barnstormers right now.
CONTINENTAL O-200A (CORE) • $3,450 • FOR SALEO200A, 329 SMOH(Field O/H in 1984)(Prop Strike-Rough-Sell AS-IS)$3,450(Photo on our w/s..Look us up) • Contact Tim Or Alex - DAWSON AIRCRAFT, INC, Owner - located Clinton, AR USA • Telephone: 501-745-5300 . • Posted August 26, 2014
 
ALTERNATOR FOR O-200 A • $100 • CLEANING OUT THE HANGARAlternator for O-200 A continental • Contact Darrin C. Ries, Owner - located Ft Myers, FL USA • Telephone: 239-560-3184 • Posted August 24, 2014
 
0200 C85 A65 C90 0300 C145 C75OPPORTUNITY KNOCKING!! DON'T MISS OUTParting several engines. Yellow tagged & As Removed Parts Available. • Contact Tom Romanchik located Nesq, PA USA • Telephone: 570-956-2385 • Posted August 21, 2014
 
For $8000 for a R-2300 80hp, with an unknown TBO History, I still stand by, that a O-200(100hp) built from scratch ebay, Barnstormer parts, or a core engine, would be much better. But that R-2300 did look pretty!
 
ebay
 SA24878, 24878, New / nos Continental C85 / C90 / O-200 / O-300 Engine Screw
  • $19.99
  • Buy It Now

Continental Pistons NOS NEW 646255 O200-O300 NOS 3 Available Charity item

  • $159.95
  • Buy It Now
If you have the time to collect the parts, you can save a lot of money, to build a O-200!
 
Just My Opinion
Rich
 
======================================================================================

2b

Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:18 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"Charlie" one1skydog

Rich,

Projected TBO numbers are useless the R-2300 was engineered and tested extensively by Revmaster. Give Joe a call and talk to him and he will tell you how they developed the engine.

Rebuilding a runout O-200 with EBay parts will not get you an engine that will make projected TBO.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT

 


Bruce's radio. Was Progress report

Sam Hoskins
 

Is your push to talk wire shielded and is the shield grounded?

Are your microphone leads shielded and the shield grounded?

Are your P leads shielded? The shield should be grounded only at the magneto, and not at the switch end.

When the magneto is turned off, the p lead is shunted to ground, right?

What brand magneto are you using?

Sam

Sent via wireless gizmo.

On Aug 30, 2014 9:26 PM, "'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Hi Rick,
I do have shielded ignition wires and resistor plugs for the mag.  I have an electronic ignition from "Electro-Air" and I did turn off both ignitions alternately and the noise is only slightly better in both instances.  I think that the mag, even when grounded to kill it, still must be making electricity to the capacitor but not letting it go to the plugs and wires.  Let me know if I am wrong.
I did pull the breaker to the alternator (in front of the firewall) and went and flew it on just the battery.  The tower said it was minimally better. Don't know how much better that actually was.  Still lots of "scratchy".
I believe that when the "Scratchy" noise is fixed the system will be improved from all the things that I have reworked and crafted.  When I find out what the problem actually is I will let the group know.
On a side note,  I talked with another friend/aviator Dr Camp and he told me he had a capacitor go bad in his C182.  He said he had "scratchy bad radio transmissions" until he had it fixed.  So I think I am slowly eliminating things that are not the problem.  Just takes time and "hanging In there" Baby!  ;o)
 
Brucie Baby

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "'Rick Hole' r.hole@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:13:03 -0400

 

Bruce, what are you using for ignition wires? Are they shielded?  I would suspect the wires before the magneto.  If you cannot have shielded wires, possibly resistor ignition wire and resistor plugs could help the noise.

 

The easiest way to determine if it is alternator noise is to simple turn off the field connection.  The alternator goes dead and cannot generate any noise at all.  So if noise starts and stops with field on and off, you have an alternator noise issue.  If it stays the same it is likely to be ignition.  You might learn something by comparing noise with right or left mag only.

Rick Hole

 


From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:30 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

 

 

The noise has gradually gotten worse.  I thought it was my old Valcom radio but I was wrong.  The new Garmin is still noisy.  So I have pulled the mag today to send it in for a check out and hopefully it will be the capacitor or points or something.  If the mag has nothing wrong with it I will pull the B and C alternator to have it checked out.

The radio works great until I fire  up the engine.  Then it gets "Scratchy" according to tower and 2 ship with my hanger mate.  In the past year I have reworked all of the grounds (pulled them all to the grounding buss by the battery).  Reworked the ground to the engine and firewall.  Periodically I have heard an arcing fazing noise in my headsets but it was intermittent.  I have tried pulling  breakers to isolate the cause but the radio still puts out noise.  I get a slight improvement when I turn off the mag but the noise is still there.  

With all that said it seems to be pointing to the mag.  I hope to get the mag back next weekend so I can remount the engine and test it.  Working long hours to try and make it to ORE. 

Will let  you know how it works out.

Bruce


---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: Quickie List <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:30:37 -0500

 

Is this radio noise new, or have you changed something? What's the background on the problem?

Sam

Sent via wireless gizmo.

On Aug 29, 2014 10:38 PM, "'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Sorry Sam,

It's no fun to take those steps backward. 

I am  fighting radio noise with transmission and receiving.  I am pulling the engine this weekend to have the mag "gone through" and also line the mag box with stainless foil shielding to perhaps help get rid of some of the radio noise.  I am working to make it to ORE the last of Sept.  I offered the right seat to Imraan so hopefully this problem will be gone by then.

Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:17:24 -0500

 

Murphy's Law again.

 

 

 

 

 



____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
www.adsonar.com

 

 



____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
fool.com

 

 



____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
fool.com


Re: Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

Rick Hole
 

Bruce, what are you using for ignition wires? Are they shielded?  I would suspect the wires before the magneto.  If you cannot have shielded wires, possibly resistor ignition wire and resistor plugs could help the noise.

 

The easiest way to determine if it is alternator noise is to simple turn off the field connection.  The alternator goes dead and cannot generate any noise at all.  So if noise starts and stops with field on and off, you have an alternator noise issue.  If it stays the same it is likely to be ignition.  You might learn something by comparing noise with right or left mag only.

Rick Hole

 


From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:30 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

 

 

The noise has gradually gotten worse.  I thought it was my old Valcom radio but I was wrong.  The new Garmin is still noisy.  So I have pulled the mag today to send it in for a check out and hopefully it will be the capacitor or points or something.  If the mag has nothing wrong with it I will pull the B and C alternator to have it checked out.

The radio works great until I fire  up the engine.  Then it gets "Scratchy" according to tower and 2 ship with my hanger mate.  In the past year I have reworked all of the grounds (pulled them all to the grounding buss by the battery).  Reworked the ground to the engine and firewall.  Periodically I have heard an arcing fazing noise in my headsets but it was intermittent.  I have tried pulling  breakers to isolate the cause but the radio still puts out noise.  I get a slight improvement when I turn off the mag but the noise is still there.  

With all that said it seems to be pointing to the mag.  I hope to get the mag back next weekend so I can remount the engine and test it.  Working long hours to try and make it to ORE. 

Will let  you know how it works out.

Bruce


---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: Quickie List <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:30:37 -0500

 

Is this radio noise new, or have you changed something? What's the background on the problem?

Sam

Sent via wireless gizmo.

On Aug 29, 2014 10:38 PM, "'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Sorry Sam,

It's no fun to take those steps backward. 

I am  fighting radio noise with transmission and receiving.  I am pulling the engine this weekend to have the mag "gone through" and also line the mag box with stainless foil shielding to perhaps help get rid of some of the radio noise.  I am working to make it to ORE the last of Sept.  I offered the right seat to Imraan so hopefully this problem will be gone by then.

Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:17:24 -0500

 

Murphy's Law again.

 

 

 

 

 



____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
www.adsonar.com

 

 



____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
fool.com


Re: Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Rick Caldwell
 

Please let me interrupt with a question.

I was looking at a Suburu 40 Hp air cooled industrial twin and was wondering if anyone had looked at them ?

Rick Caldwell

Wyoming Long-EZ builder

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 4:20 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

 

 

Ok, lets talk Revmaster 2300. Looks like 85hp for $8000. I didn't see what the TBO was for it?

 

What is the highest TBO of any Revmaster 2300 flying, that you have found in your research? How many have you found, that are really flying?

 

I believe a guy called John Finley, spent about 20 years, trying to make a Subaru work in a Q2, before he gave up. I wonder how many hours, and $$$, he spent?

 

For $8000, I would rebuild a used O-200 core engine, and have a 100hp+ engine, or buy the parts New/Used off ebay/Barnstormers to assemble one, maybe even cheaper. Here is a parts manual with all part numbers.

 

Some New O-200 parts with prices. Make a Spreadsheet with all the Part numbers, with a New Prices column, and what you find on ebay, Barnstormers column. I bet if you look real hard, you can come in less than $8000.

 

For example: You can buy a O-200 Cam off ebay(I paid $29 for mine), send it to a CAM Grinder, and have it touched up, or reground with a new profile. I have seen used O-200 Case's go for $250-$400 on ebay.

 

Remember, it's for an Experimental Airplane, it doesn't have to be Certified also. Building any of these engines, isn't Rocket Science! There are books, videos, etc., to learn how, and what to do.

 

You say, "That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90. " Yes, I would, he is a Russian Engineering Student. That model was for his finals. But before spending any $$$ making anything, I would always double check the part to be made. If you make it, you can call it what you want. When a New O-200 Cam is like $800+, a Crank $3500, Complete Cylinders $800+ each, etc. Buying some New NOS, or good used parts, is appealing.

 

Just My Opinion

Rich

===============================================================================

Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Jon Matcho" jmatcho

Rich wrote:

>{a virtual book on Skidoo-Rotax conversions}

Interesting stuff. I'll marvel at everyone else who does these. My uncle flies a Rotax in his Kolb III ultralight. I understand a benefit is that, in the event of a prop strike, the reduction box takes the brunt of the impact and is a $2,000 part and minor service job.

My take is that the Revmaster 2300 is a solid engine, with all the original 2100 bugs worked out and with new improvements. Of course it has less than 100hp, and may not be the absolute best engine for the Q2, but if I a brand new Revmaster 2300 showed up at my doorstep I would run with it.

I've done a fair amount of research and had quite the bit of information coming to me on and off list. Summary points are:

* The 2100 series, as originally shipped with the Q2, had issues (and possibly still does, even with the improvements). That, paired with its sub-100hp seems to be the source of a myth or two out there regarding Quickies in general.

* It may not be worth spending any money on the 2100.

* Nobody has bashed the Revmaster 2300 engine, in this list, in personal email, or on Internet forums as far as I can tell. Even the Sonex lists, where the AeroVee is standard, the Revmaster 2300 is somewhat revered.

This article shows some of the engineering involved at Revmaster: http://issuu.com/panzera/docs/issue_104.5

I do want to take part in the building and maintenance of an engine, but not so much the engineering itself.

That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90 ;-)

Thank you!

Jon Matcho

 


Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

Randy Lewis
 

Charlie,
I am using a Sterba prop. I ordered a 60 X 60 but it was a bit too much and would static out at 2500 so I had Ed repitch it for me.  He didn't tell me what it is now but I'm guessing about 60 X 58. It statics about 2700 now.  Since I have a tri gear I can swing a bigger prop than with a taildragger.

Randy


Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

aerialfoto1@...
 

Its 115 I believe not sure at what rpm.


Re: Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

I hate radio problems. In the good ol open cockpit days you could drop a note over the side.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


"'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Sorry Sam,
It's no fun to take those steps backward. 
I am  fighting radio noise with transmission and receiving.  I am pulling the engine this weekend to have the mag "gone through" and also line the mag box with stainless foil shielding to perhaps help get rid of some of the radio noise.  I am working to make it to ORE the last of Sept.  I offered the right seat to Imraan so hopefully this problem will be gone by then.
Bruce


---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:17:24 -0500

 

Murphy's Law again.
 
 
 

 

 



____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
www.adsonar.com


Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Jon Matcho <jmatcho@...>
 

Rich wrote:

 

>What is the highest TBO of any Revmaster 2300 flying, that you have found in your research? How many have you found, that are really flying?

 

I have only found a few and, as I wrote, there have been no complaints or quirks with the 2300 unlike all other auto conversions.  TBO is TBD.

 

>For $8000, I would rebuild a used O-200 core engine, and have a 100hp+ engine...

 

That's another option, with the upside that running Q200s have higher resale value than "those unreliable auto conversions".

 

The Revmaster 2300 just about cannot be called an auto conversion at this point.  There are hardly any parts left from an actual VW in it with all its purpose-built proprietary parts.  I don't see at all why it shouldn't be a consideration for new Q2 builds.  Isn't the point of the Quickie to be affordable and approachable?  Oh yeah, and safe.

 

>Building any of these engines, isn't Rocket Science! There are books, videos, etc., to learn how, and what to do.

 

True.  A Long-EZ flyer made an impression on me when talking about his Lycoming.  He asked, "Did you ever rebuild a lawnmower engine?"  "Yes", I replied.  "Well then you can handle these engines."

 

>(Regarding whether you would trust that C90 CAD model)

>Yes, I would, he is a Russian Engineering Student. That model was for his finals. But before spending any $$$ making anything, I would always double check the part to be made.

 

My point was how much "double checking" this student did.  I assume he had a C90 in-hand and measured each and every single part with a micrometer.  You also have to assume that the C90 he used was unmodified and up to factory tolerances (perfect overhaul).  Making that leap of faith and then machining something requires knowing what metal formulations are needed (certainly possible, but much more work).  After machining you'll have a part that is 0.5mm larger/smaller than the one you're comparing with -- all parts will NOT be the same size as the factory castings (whatever those sizes officially are).  Make another leap of faith, put the whole thing together, and fly.  Now that would be an absolute remarkable achievement that I would love to read about.  The model is impressive in its own right.

 

>Just My Opinion

 

Same.  I am not looking to build and fly a proven airframe-engine combination without excessive re-engineering.  I consider these the options for ME at this point (no discredit whatsoever to anyone who's suggested or favored anything else -- go for it):

 

1) Q200 with rebuilt Continental O-200

2) Q2 with a new Revmaster 2300

3) Q2 with updated Revmaster 2100 (done by Revmaster)

 

Many other engines are appealing and viable, but I don't want to afford them and/or do the one-off work required.

 

Thanks everyone for all your feedback and patience from this "newbie".  Off to do something... :-)

 

Jon

 


From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of Armilite@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:19 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?
 
 

Ok, lets talk Revmaster 2300. Looks like 85hp for $8000. I didn't see what the TBO was for it?
 
What is the highest TBO of any Revmaster 2300 flying, that you have found in your research? How many have you found, that are really flying?
 
I believe a guy called John Finley, spent about 20 years, trying to make a Subaru work in a Q2, before he gave up. I wonder how many hours, and $$$, he spent?
 
For $8000, I would rebuild a used O-200 core engine, and have a 100hp+ engine, or buy the parts New/Used off ebay/Barnstormers to assemble one, maybe even cheaper. Here is a parts manual with all part numbers.
 
Some New O-200 parts with prices. Make a Spreadsheet with all the Part numbers, with a New Prices column, and what you find on ebay, Barnstormers column. I bet if you look real hard, you can come in less than $8000.
 
For example: You can buy a O-200 Cam off ebay(I paid $29 for mine), send it to a CAM Grinder, and have it touched up, or reground with a new profile. I have seen used O-200 Case's go for $250-$400 on ebay.
 
Remember, it's for an Experimental Airplane, it doesn't have to be Certified also. Building any of these engines, isn't Rocket Science! There are books, videos, etc., to learn how, and what to do.
 
You say, "That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90. " Yes, I would, he is a Russian Engineering Student. That model was for his finals. But before spending any $$$ making anything, I would always double check the part to be made. If you make it, you can call it what you want. When a New O-200 Cam is like $800+, a Crank $3500, Complete Cylinders $800+ each, etc. Buying some New NOS, or good used parts, is appealing.
 
Just My Opinion
Rich
===============================================================================

3b

Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Jon Matcho" jmatcho

Rich wrote:

>{a virtual book on Skidoo-Rotax conversions}

Interesting stuff. I'll marvel at everyone else who does these. My uncle flies a Rotax in his Kolb III ultralight. I understand a benefit is that, in the event of a prop strike, the reduction box takes the brunt of the impact and is a $2,000 part and minor service job.

My take is that the Revmaster 2300 is a solid engine, with all the original 2100 bugs worked out and with new improvements. Of course it has less than 100hp, and may not be the absolute best engine for the Q2, but if I a brand new Revmaster 2300 showed up at my doorstep I would run with it.

I've done a fair amount of research and had quite the bit of information coming to me on and off list. Summary points are:

* The 2100 series, as originally shipped with the Q2, had issues (and possibly still does, even with the improvements). That, paired with its sub-100hp seems to be the source of a myth or two out there regarding Quickies in general.

* It may not be worth spending any money on the 2100.

* Nobody has bashed the Revmaster 2300 engine, in this list, in personal email, or on Internet forums as far as I can tell. Even the Sonex lists, where the AeroVee is standard, the Revmaster 2300 is somewhat revered.

This article shows some of the engineering involved at Revmaster: http://issuu.com/panzera/docs/issue_104.5

I do want to take part in the building and maintenance of an engine, but not so much the engineering itself.

That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90 ;-)

Thank you!

Jon Matcho

 


Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

One Sky Dog
 

Randy,

What diameter and pitch prop are you using and who made it?

Regards,
Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT



On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:02 PM, "rclewis213@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Jon

I would suggest you spend some time reading the flycorvair.com website. Lots of great information that may help you decide a way forward.  There are dyno runs comparing O200 and Corvair engines and dozens of examples of flying planes with Corvair engines. 
I am flying a Corvair powered Dragonfly tri gear .  it has plenty of power, cruises at 140 mph @ 2700 rpm and burns 5 gal/hr  I climb at 105 mph 800 ft/min and 1200 lbs.  My engine is a 100 HP 2700cc model with a 5th bearing that I built for about $5000.  It is a true 0 time motor not a runout rebuild. You can purchase a loaded 120 HP engine ready to install for your budget or build one yourself for a lot less. 
Your Q would probably out perform my Dragonfly as they are faster planes. My 2cents.

Randy Lewis
Dragonfly MKIII
N323CR


Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

One Sky Dog
 

Rich,

Projected TBO numbers are useless the R-2300 was engineered and tested extensively by Revmaster. Give Joe a call and talk to him and he will tell you how they developed the engine.

Rebuilding a runout O-200 with EBay parts will not get you an engine that will make projected TBO.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT



On Aug 30, 2014, at 4:19 AM, "Armilite@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Ok, lets talk Revmaster 2300. Looks like 85hp for $8000. I didn't see what the TBO was for it?
 
What is the highest TBO of any Revmaster 2300 flying, that you have found in your research? How many have you found, that are really flying?
 
I believe a guy called John Finley, spent about 20 years, trying to make a Subaru work in a Q2, before he gave up. I wonder how many hours, and $$$, he spent?
 
For $8000, I would rebuild a used O-200 core engine, and have a 100hp+ engine, or buy the parts New/Used off ebay/Barnstormers to assemble one, maybe even cheaper. Here is a parts manual with all part numbers.
 
Some New O-200 parts with prices. Make a Spreadsheet with all the Part numbers, with a New Prices column, and what you find on ebay, Barnstormers column. I bet if you look real hard, you can come in less than $8000.
 
For example: You can buy a O-200 Cam off ebay(I paid $29 for mine), send it to a CAM Grinder, and have it touched up, or reground with a new profile. I have seen used O-200 Case's go for $250-$400 on ebay.
 
Remember, it's for an Experimental Airplane, it doesn't have to be Certified also. Building any of these engines, isn't Rocket Science! There are books, videos, etc., to learn how, and what to do.
 
You say, "That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90. " Yes, I would, he is a Russian Engineering Student. That model was for his finals. But before spending any $$$ making anything, I would always double check the part to be made. If you make it, you can call it what you want. When a New O-200 Cam is like $800+, a Crank $3500, Complete Cylinders $800+ each, etc. Buying some New NOS, or good used parts, is appealing.
 
Just My Opinion
Rich
===============================================================================

3b

Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Jon Matcho" jmatcho

Rich wrote:

>{a virtual book on Skidoo-Rotax conversions}

Interesting stuff. I'll marvel at everyone else who does these. My uncle flies a Rotax in his Kolb III ultralight. I understand a benefit is that, in the event of a prop strike, the reduction box takes the brunt of the impact and is a $2,000 part and minor service job.

My take is that the Revmaster 2300 is a solid engine, with all the original 2100 bugs worked out and with new improvements. Of course it has less than 100hp, and may not be the absolute best engine for the Q2, but if I a brand new Revmaster 2300 showed up at my doorstep I would run with it.

I've done a fair amount of research and had quite the bit of information coming to me on and off list. Summary points are:

* The 2100 series, as originally shipped with the Q2, had issues (and possibly still does, even with the improvements). That, paired with its sub-100hp seems to be the source of a myth or two out there regarding Quickies in general.

* It may not be worth spending any money on the 2100.

* Nobody has bashed the Revmaster 2300 engine, in this list, in personal email, or on Internet forums as far as I can tell. Even the Sonex lists, where the AeroVee is standard, the Revmaster 2300 is somewhat revered.

This article shows some of the engineering involved at Revmaster: http://issuu.com/panzera/docs/issue_104.5

I do want to take part in the building and maintenance of an engine, but not so much the engineering itself.

That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90 ;-)

Thank you!

Jon Matcho

 


Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

One Sky Dog
 

Rich,

I have not had anything coated except the exhaust which was coated with Jet Hot ceramic. I believe I have air flow issues at the outlet. I have made a modified belly cover that should extract more air from under the engine.

Currently I have a gear issue that I am slowly working. As soon as that is resolved I will continue flight testing of the cooling system. I was able to cool the engine at outside air temps below 90 degrees.

The plane does 150 mph on the Corvair so far. In the car a Corvair could dissipate at least 140 HP of heat. I tried to design my own baffling system as there is no plans to put a Corvair on a Dragonfly.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT

Regards,

Charlie


On Aug 30, 2014, at 3:00 AM, "Armilite@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Charlie:
 
Have you ever tried any of the Techline Engine Coatings? Their Ceramic Coatings are suppose to reduce Temps by 20%.
 
Rich
=====================================================================

1f

Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:51 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Charlie" one1skydog

Larry,

The original push rod tube seals were natural rubber and could not take the temperature. The seals are now viton and good for 450 F.

Jon,

I am finishing up a Corvair installation in a Dragonfly. I have had some problems with heat management but it is not the engines fault. I had another Dragonfly that I put 550 hr on and live at 4400 Ft. It had a 1835cc HAPI VW conversion.

The Corvair is similar weight as a O-200 and develops its horsepower at a higher rpm. The O-200 has a lot more low end torque because it has more displacement and 4 cyls instead of 6.

I sat in the Contact booth at Airventure 2013 there was a Revmaster's 2300 there and I read all of the Contact articles about it. I was impressed, not only do you get the engine but built in is 2 dynamos for electricity and dual ignition is also built in. This is major hassle and some weight savings as opposed to how the VW is. The Revmaster 2300 can hardly be called a VW it is rated at 80 hp but when they did the endurance test on the Dyno they cranked it up to 100 HP and tried to melt the heads unsuccessfully. The heads are not VW and have more cooling capacity.

If I were to do it over I know that going from a VW to the Revmaster 2300 would be a lot easier. I think on a light Q it would work fine. I have advised my brother to get rid of his HAPI and convert to the R-2300.

I would definitively choose the R-2300 over the Aero Vee.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah

 


Re: Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.

Sam Hoskins
 

Is this radio noise new, or have you changed something? What's the background on the problem?

Sam

Sent via wireless gizmo.

On Aug 29, 2014 10:38 PM, "'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Sorry Sam,
It's no fun to take those steps backward. 
I am  fighting radio noise with transmission and receiving.  I am pulling the engine this weekend to have the mag "gone through" and also line the mag box with stainless foil shielding to perhaps help get rid of some of the radio noise.  I am working to make it to ORE the last of Sept.  I offered the right seat to Imraan so hopefully this problem will be gone by then.
Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Q-LIST] Progress report - Two sets forward, big steps backwards.
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:17:24 -0500

 

Murphy's Law again.
 
 
 

 

 



____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
www.adsonar.com


Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Rich Gillen
 

Ok, lets talk Revmaster 2300. Looks like 85hp for $8000. I didn't see what the TBO was for it?
 
What is the highest TBO of any Revmaster 2300 flying, that you have found in your research? How many have you found, that are really flying?
 
I believe a guy called John Finley, spent about 20 years, trying to make a Subaru work in a Q2, before he gave up. I wonder how many hours, and $$$, he spent?
 
For $8000, I would rebuild a used O-200 core engine, and have a 100hp+ engine, or buy the parts New/Used off ebay/Barnstormers to assemble one, maybe even cheaper. Here is a parts manual with all part numbers.
 
Some New O-200 parts with prices. Make a Spreadsheet with all the Part numbers, with a New Prices column, and what you find on ebay, Barnstormers column. I bet if you look real hard, you can come in less than $8000.
 
For example: You can buy a O-200 Cam off ebay(I paid $29 for mine), send it to a CAM Grinder, and have it touched up, or reground with a new profile. I have seen used O-200 Case's go for $250-$400 on ebay.
 
Remember, it's for an Experimental Airplane, it doesn't have to be Certified also. Building any of these engines, isn't Rocket Science! There are books, videos, etc., to learn how, and what to do.
 
You say, "That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90. " Yes, I would, he is a Russian Engineering Student. That model was for his finals. But before spending any $$$ making anything, I would always double check the part to be made. If you make it, you can call it what you want. When a New O-200 Cam is like $800+, a Crank $3500, Complete Cylinders $800+ each, etc. Buying some New NOS, or good used parts, is appealing.
 
Just My Opinion
Rich
===============================================================================

3b

Re: Anything else on a $12,500 budget?

Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Jon Matcho" jmatcho

Rich wrote:

>{a virtual book on Skidoo-Rotax conversions}

Interesting stuff. I'll marvel at everyone else who does these. My uncle flies a Rotax in his Kolb III ultralight. I understand a benefit is that, in the event of a prop strike, the reduction box takes the brunt of the impact and is a $2,000 part and minor service job.

My take is that the Revmaster 2300 is a solid engine, with all the original 2100 bugs worked out and with new improvements. Of course it has less than 100hp, and may not be the absolute best engine for the Q2, but if I a brand new Revmaster 2300 showed up at my doorstep I would run with it.

I've done a fair amount of research and had quite the bit of information coming to me on and off list. Summary points are:

* The 2100 series, as originally shipped with the Q2, had issues (and possibly still does, even with the improvements). That, paired with its sub-100hp seems to be the source of a myth or two out there regarding Quickies in general.

* It may not be worth spending any money on the 2100.

* Nobody has bashed the Revmaster 2300 engine, in this list, in personal email, or on Internet forums as far as I can tell. Even the Sonex lists, where the AeroVee is standard, the Revmaster 2300 is somewhat revered.

This article shows some of the engineering involved at Revmaster: http://issuu.com/panzera/docs/issue_104.5

I do want to take part in the building and maintenance of an engine, but not so much the engineering itself.

That CAD drawing is beautiful, but would you trust the author's accuracy? Call it a C-X90 ;-)

Thank you!

Jon Matcho

 


Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

Rich Gillen
 

Charlie:
 
Have you ever tried any of the Techline Engine Coatings? Their Ceramic Coatings are suppose to reduce Temps by 20%.
 
Rich
=====================================================================

1f

Re: Quickie Q2 Revmaster 2100-D

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:51 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Charlie" one1skydog

Larry,

The original push rod tube seals were natural rubber and could not take the temperature. The seals are now viton and good for 450 F.

Jon,

I am finishing up a Corvair installation in a Dragonfly. I have had some problems with heat management but it is not the engines fault. I had another Dragonfly that I put 550 hr on and live at 4400 Ft. It had a 1835cc HAPI VW conversion.

The Corvair is similar weight as a O-200 and develops its horsepower at a higher rpm. The O-200 has a lot more low end torque because it has more displacement and 4 cyls instead of 6.

I sat in the Contact booth at Airventure 2013 there was a Revmaster's 2300 there and I read all of the Contact articles about it. I was impressed, not only do you get the engine but built in is 2 dynamos for electricity and dual ignition is also built in. This is major hassle and some weight savings as opposed to how the VW is. The Revmaster 2300 can hardly be called a VW it is rated at 80 hp but when they did the endurance test on the Dyno they cranked it up to 100 HP and tried to melt the heads unsuccessfully. The heads are not VW and have more cooling capacity.

If I were to do it over I know that going from a VW to the Revmaster 2300 would be a lot easier. I think on a light Q it would work fine. I have advised my brother to get rid of his HAPI and convert to the R-2300.

I would definitively choose the R-2300 over the Aero Vee.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah

 

11241 - 11260 of 53563