Date   

Re: Never Wet, slick surface, water proofing paint, Chrome paint

Jeff Sellars
 

Thanks Patrick, I will do that at some point, I was assuming that Chrome would be more reflective than White , as a Mirror, but I will do some looking into that before it all goes on, I guess - worst case, I could leave the tops of the wings white, and do the rest of the plane.


On Sunday, January 4, 2015 6:33 PM, "Patrick Panzera editor@... [Q-LIST]" wrote:


 
Might want to test the surface temps of this "chrome" treatment. In my experience,  chrome gets WAY hotter than white when left in the sun.
On Jan 4, 2015 3:58 PM, "kitfoxjeff@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 
Few question of surface slickness,.... I have decided to paint my Q-2 (Ls-1) bird a few shades of Chrome from Spectra Chrome. I guess that these finishes are relatively new, real cool looking. I may use some Chrome Vehicle wrap material for some of the stripes and design.  You can Google Chrome vehicle wraps, and have a look how cool these Chrome finishes look.

Now as for the questions:
I have been seeing a lot of interesting videos on the new in reference to product that water proof surfaces like never before. Water drops don't stick to painted surfaces once treated. Even surfaces that are almost flat. You need to see what I mean on you tube. Well, are they accomplishing a decrease in surface adhesion? If so, are they making the surfaces more slick? Can we possible have a Faster plane if our planes were coated with this stuff? How about on a propeller? More slick surfaces? Has anyone tried any of these products for speed?




Re: Original Q1 LS1 Spars Question

Wayne Bressler <wayne@...>
 

Sam,

I'll do my best to get pictures soon, but it'll be a few days at best.

Thank you,

Wayne Bressler
Taildraggers, Inc.

On Jan 4, 2015, at 7:25 PM, "Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

You could take a few photos and show us.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Wayne Bressler wayne@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Other than a receipt, or seller's word, is there any way to tell if a set of carbon spars are original QAC, or something else?

I have a pair that came with my project, and I've been told they are QAC, but I would like to be able to verify that if possible.

I appreciate any tips on this.

Thank you,

Wayne Bressler
Taildraggers, Inc.
www.taildraggersinc.com



Re: Never Wet, slick surface, water proofing paint, Chrome paint

Patrick Panzera
 

Might want to test the surface temps of this "chrome" treatment. In my experience,  chrome gets WAY hotter than white when left in the sun.

On Jan 4, 2015 3:58 PM, "kitfoxjeff@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Few question of surface slickness,.... I have decided to paint my Q-2 (Ls-1) bird a few shades of Chrome from Spectra Chrome. I guess that these finishes are relatively new, real cool looking. I may use some Chrome Vehicle wrap material for some of the stripes and design.  You can Google Chrome vehicle wraps, and have a look how cool these Chrome finishes look.


Now as for the questions:

I have been seeing a lot of interesting videos on the new in reference to product that water proof surfaces like never before. Water drops don't stick to painted surfaces once treated. Even surfaces that are almost flat. You need to see what I mean on you tube. Well, are they accomplishing a decrease in surface adhesion? If so, are they making the surfaces more slick? Can we possible have a Faster plane if our planes were coated with this stuff? How about on a propeller? More slick surfaces? Has anyone tried any of these products for speed?



Re: Original Q1 LS1 Spars Question

Sam Hoskins
 

You could take a few photos and show us.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Wayne Bressler wayne@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Other than a receipt, or seller's word, is there any way to tell if a set of carbon spars are original QAC, or something else?

I have a pair that came with my project, and I've been told they are QAC, but I would like to be able to verify that if possible.

I appreciate any tips on this.

Thank you,

Wayne Bressler
Taildraggers, Inc.
www.taildraggersinc.com



Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

Jeff Sellars
 

Hi , Mike, I have 7 vehicles wrapped with good quality stuff, I get one done each year. My oldest in 8 years old and still looks great. And my vehicles all live out side and work year round. I figure a quality chrome wrap, kept in a hanger and used a few times a month should last 30 to 80 years.






At Jan 4, 2015, 4:53:40 PM, jay@... [Q-LIST]<'Q-LIST@...'> wrote:










I would echo what Jim says here. There are many experienced people whose advice you can leverage for free if you go with the O-200 engine. If you do not choose this route, then you better find those that have worked with whatever engine you choose and listen to them. I can personally vouch for Jim P's airplane doing what he says it can do. All those that fly above 1100 lbs have done so pretty much without incident and know how to compensate for the additional weight and do so safely. Good luck with your choice. I hope to join the ranks of those that have some flying cred in the Q within the next year, but in the meantime I have seen/heard the voices of those with experience over the 30 years that I have been working on mine and I have learned a lot from them.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q still building











Re: Original Q1 LS1 Spars Question

Mike Dwyer
 

The original LS1 spars had a wrap of yellow fiberglass on the outside.  I believe the aftermarket spars were straight black?
Mike Dwyer N3QP

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF



On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Wayne Bressler wayne@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Other than a receipt, or seller's word, is there any way to tell if a set of carbon spars are original QAC, or something else?

I have a pair that came with my project, and I've been told they are QAC, but I would like to be able to verify that if possible.

I appreciate any tips on this.

Thank you,

Wayne Bressler
Taildraggers, Inc.
www.taildraggersinc.com



Re: Never Wet, slick surface, water proofing paint, Chrome paint

Mike Dwyer
 

I checked into that wrap stuff recently.  The chinese guy told me it can last for up to a year outside.   In other words, not to durable.

Mike Dwyer N3QP

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Vimeo: http://goo.gl/bsaLsG
My Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF
Skype q2pilot@...

On Jan 4, 2015 6:57 PM, "kitfoxjeff@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Few question of surface slickness,.... I have decided to paint my Q-2 (Ls-1) bird a few shades of Chrome from Spectra Chrome. I guess that these finishes are relatively new, real cool looking. I may use some Chrome Vehicle wrap material for some of the stripes and design.  You can Google Chrome vehicle wraps, and have a look how cool these Chrome finishes look.


Now as for the questions:

I have been seeing a lot of interesting videos on the new in reference to product that water proof surfaces like never before. Water drops don't stick to painted surfaces once treated. Even surfaces that are almost flat. You need to see what I mean on you tube. Well, are they accomplishing a decrease in surface adhesion? If so, are they making the surfaces more slick? Can we possible have a Faster plane if our planes were coated with this stuff? How about on a propeller? More slick surfaces? Has anyone tried any of these products for speed?



Never Wet, slick surface, water proofing paint, Chrome paint

Jeff Sellars
 

Few question of surface slickness,.... I have decided to paint my Q-2 (Ls-1) bird a few shades of Chrome from Spectra Chrome. I guess that these finishes are relatively new, real cool looking. I may use some Chrome Vehicle wrap material for some of the stripes and design.  You can Google Chrome vehicle wraps, and have a look how cool these Chrome finishes look.


Now as for the questions:

I have been seeing a lot of interesting videos on the new in reference to product that water proof surfaces like never before. Water drops don't stick to painted surfaces once treated. Even surfaces that are almost flat. You need to see what I mean on you tube. Well, are they accomplishing a decrease in surface adhesion? If so, are they making the surfaces more slick? Can we possible have a Faster plane if our planes were coated with this stuff? How about on a propeller? More slick surfaces? Has anyone tried any of these products for speed?



Original Q1 LS1 Spars Question

Wayne Bressler <wayne@...>
 

Other than a receipt, or seller's word, is there any way to tell if a set of carbon spars are original QAC, or something else?


I have a pair that came with my project, and I've been told they are QAC, but I would like to be able to verify that if possible.


I appreciate any tips on this.


Thank you,


Wayne Bressler
Taildraggers, Inc.
www.taildraggersinc.com


Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

I would echo what Jim says here. There are many experienced people whose advice you can leverage for free if you go with the O-200 engine. If you do not choose this route, then you better find those that have worked with whatever engine you choose and listen to them. I can personally vouch for Jim P's airplane doing what he says it can do. All those that fly above 1100 lbs have done so pretty much without incident and know how to compensate for the additional weight and do so safely. Good luck with your choice. I hope to join the ranks of those that have some flying cred in the Q within the next year, but in the meantime I have seen/heard the voices of those with experience over the 30 years that I have been working on mine and I have learned a lot from them.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q still building


Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

Jim Patillo
 

Again I don't know your name and I'm sure its not boogi, please identify yourself and where you are located.

It sounds like no matter what you've been told by us regular Q200/0200  drivers, you want to install lower horsepower because you can't afford more or you don't think it will be necessary. Your enthusiasm is good
(because you will need a lot of it) but that typically doesn't get er done.There are only a few Q2 Revmaster guys like Dave and Renee  I respect because of their tenacity and understanding of what they have done. They have continued to overcome the odds and quirks of that engine.

 No problem, engineer or install what ever you want. You just won't get a great deal of advice or encouragement for it from this list. Like Mike D, Bruce C, Mark S, Sam H, Jerry M, Earnest M, Bob F, Kevin S, Sanjay D,  Brad O  and others before, we've seen this scenario  many  times over the last 35 years. Maybe you are brighter and faster thant all of us. I don't think so.

When I rode in the factory Q2 Revmaster in 1980, I  thought the unproven Revmaster was the cats meow, like many did, It wasn't. As soon as the plane was redesigned with the 0200, many of us saw the benefits right away and switched. You can say what you want about old Continental technology like Bruce said, but facts are facts.

As far as Willard goes, I've never heard of him in the Q community. He appears to have considerable aviation knowledge but obviously little or no experience in Q200s. We have tested and proven the plane works fine in higher gross weight ranges. I tested and have flown my Q at 1,300 lbs + many times on cross country trips. I am helping Grayson in New Zealand get his Q200 Airworthiness Certificate gross weight increased. Their Civil Aviation Authority wants a copy of my Airworthiness Certificate as a source of proof of gross weight increase over the original factory specifications.

If you worked with Tim at Lancair ( I have his old hangar) you know about glass and what you can trust and what you cannot. I personally would be suspicious of old glass components.

Good luck!

Jim Patillo
N46JP
Q200/0200 pumped, polished, ported, flow balanced, dual electronic LightSpeed ignitions. Marvel Schebler
carb, Catto 60/72 prop.



---In Q-LIST@..., <bwtaudiowerks@...> wrote :

Ok, you mention LS1 Q2s at 577lbs. Is there a difference in the wing loading etc. between the original wing and the LS1? When you say the wings are barely big enough for 1100lbs. you're referring to both wings? Stupid question but the only real difference between the Q2 and 200 is the engine and the LS1 because of rain/less critical build?

Basically, I just want to figure out where the sweet spot of the envelope is with 400lbs. I've lost 35lbs. over the last several months so who knows- we might be at 300 by the time it's finished.

All I know is when I worked at Lancair it seemed that customers were always interested in bigger engines and faster airspeed. It seemed that the dog was chasing it's tail with bigger engine/bigger plane. I'm not interested in that. I've finally been able to buy a kit after all these years where I have the time and space to build it. If the Q2 with the six pack and (upgraded) Revmaster will get me there within the best part of the design parameters I'm perfectly happy with that.

So what I understand you saying is keep the weight down and that the O200 is on the overkill side? Is the sweet spot somewhere between the two engines? Would the bigger Revmaster be the better way to go?

The other question I would like input on is the age of the wings. These in my kit were finished many years ago and signed off by an inspector in Canada. They look to be well built. Can I trust them? I don't mind rebuilding the original wings if need be or the LS1 if I can figure out the carbon spar. Doesn't look too hard.


Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

bwtaudiowerks@...
 

Ok, you mention LS1 Q2s at 577lbs. Is there a difference in the wing loading etc. between the original wing and the LS1? When you say the wings are barely big enough for 1100lbs. you're referring to both wings? Stupid question but the only real difference between the Q2 and 200 is the engine and the LS1 because of rain/less critical build?

Basically, I just want to figure out where the sweet spot of the envelope is with 400lbs. I've lost 35lbs. over the last several months so who knows- we might be at 300 by the time it's finished.

All I know is when I worked at Lancair it seemed that customers were always interested in bigger engines and faster airspeed. It seemed that the dog was chasing it's tail with bigger engine/bigger plane. I'm not interested in that. I've finally been able to buy a kit after all these years where I have the time and space to build it. If the Q2 with the six pack and (upgraded) Revmaster will get me there within the best part of the design parameters I'm perfectly happy with that.

So what I understand you saying is keep the weight down and that the O200 is on the overkill side? Is the sweet spot somewhere between the two engines? Would the bigger Revmaster be the better way to go?

The other question I would like input on is the age of the wings. These in my kit were finished many years ago and signed off by an inspector in Canada. They look to be well built. Can I trust them? I don't mind rebuilding the original wings if need be or the LS1 if I can figure out the carbon spar. Doesn't look too hard.


Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

willardwhite671@...
 

Do some weight calculations before you order an engine.  The average weight of 10 Q200s is 708 pounds.  The average weight of three LS1 Q2s is 577 pounds.  You expressed interest in utility and safety, utility being the ability to carry 400 lbs. in the cockpit.  The wing(s) on the Q2, 66 sq. ft., are barely big enough for 1100 pounds; I don't recommend exceeding.  Minimum speed (canard stall speed) increases with the square root of the increase in weight.  That is to say, if you increase your typical operating weight by 20% (don't forget to add six more gallons of fuel for the 50% more horsepower) your landing speed will increase about 9%.  Impact will increase with the square of the landing speed.  Bottom line; impact increases linearly with increases in weight.  Do you really want to increase your weight 19 or 20%?


Re: Kevin Sheely N480KS

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

Bruce Crain
 


Re: I would seriously look into some of the new

Rich Gillen
 

Brad:
 
Like I said, you already made up your mind about these different engine coatings! I seriously doubt, you even took the time to really read the web info provided, and watch the few mini movies. It's not about 2 strokes, or 4 strokes, it's about the use of these different engine coatings on any engine, to fight Heat, Friction, Corrosion, and to make them all more durable, and to maybe even make more HP.
 
You said your from Missouri, so show me. So I did, I gave you, some examples, of people using some of them in the real world, yes, on a 2 stroke. NASCAR, NHRA, NASA, don't really run many 2 Strokes, but they all use some, or all of these Coatings.
 
Like I said, if you can't READ the info, and Watch the few mini movies, on the different coatings available today, to educate yourself, where they may help you, your engine, on what ever type engine you choose to use. There are literally, 100s of movies on Youtube of these different engine coatings being used in the real world, on diesels, jets, 4 strokes, and nasty ole 2 strokes, etc.
 
That 2000 hr TBO of your traditional aircraft engine, which a lot, don't really make that 2000hrs, may become a 2500hr TBO, a 3000hr TBO, a 3500hr TBO, if all the different engine coatings are applied.
 
I've done my job of making the group aware of the Engine Coating info, it's up to them, and you, to decide if they can apply the info to their engine of choice. All engines can benefit from them.
 
When you really get that traditional, 2000hr TBO aircraft engine, and stop reading, and watching movies about it, let's talk again, there maybe some new Technolgy out by then. Maybe we can even 3D Print one out by then. Don't laugh, it's already possible! They have 3D Printed a complete Colt 1911-A1 pistol and have test fired over 5000 rounds through it, with no problems. I'll let you Google it, to see it for yourself.
 
Just My 2 Cents
Rich
=====================================================================

6a

Re: I would seriously look into some of the new

Thu Jan 1, 2015 7:31 pm (PST) . Posted by:

"Brad Walker" bradley_walker

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Armilite@... [Q-LIST] <
Q-LIST@...> wrote:

>
> Brad:
>
> Many of these Coatings were designed by, or for NASA, many millions of
> your tax payers dollars spent, proved in Space, used in NASCAR, NHRA, KART,
> and other forms of High Level Racing, etc. If you can't READ their web
> pages, and WATCH a few short mini Movies on the different ENGINE COATINGS
> available today, to educate yourself, on how they can maybe help you, your
> engine, then I'm not going to convince you! You have already made up your
> mind. You can lead a mule/people to water/info, but you can't make him
> drink/apply it. All of these million dollar NASCAR/NHRA, etc., Race Teams,
> NASA, are wrong for using these products. Their engines, are all making
> 700hp to 8000+hp.
>

I don't think I ever said using a ceramic coating was inappropriate or the
technology wasn't valid. And there are a lot of applications that use
engine coatings. But, there is a big difference from reading about and
watching videos verses an actual application. If you decide that using a
ceramic coating in your engine is appropriate, then more power to you. This
is why it's called experimental. I hope that you have success with it. When
you are done, let us know how it works for you. I would like to see real
data from someone who has done it instead of reading about or watching a
video.

Joe Granek, 30yr+ long time Rotax engine builder, who rebuilds Rotax
> 582's(65hp) has more than doubled their 300hr TBO to 700+ just using
> Ceramic Top, Moly Coated pistons, and rings.
>
> Rotax Rick, a 30yr+ long time Rotax engine builder, whose specialty is the
> Skidoo/Rotax 670(92hp) Conversions, has it's TBO up to 450hrs, soon to be
> raised higher, once some other Bearing testing is done. He use's a Ceramic
> Top Piston.
>
>

Good for those guys. But, for me I like to live in the 2000 hr TBO of a
traditional aircraft engine. If you want to do use a Rotax engine, that is
your decision. It's the whole premise that EAA is based upon. And that
premise is experimental. If and when I build a Q, I will probably go with a
traditional aircraft engine because I want to experiment in other places on
the plane and not in the engine area.

You can take my free advice and ignore it. Nothing wrong with that. I
understand your position and for me, I disagree. That doesn't make either
of us right or wrong. Like I said, it's experimental and that's the joy in
all this.

Good luck with what ever you choose to do with an engine! But, please
report back and let us know, so that we can learn from you.

-brad w.

 


Re: Kevin Sheely N480KS

Jim Patillo
 

Kevin,

That is good news. Jerry and I both felt the ram air tube was your problem. On to the next step!

Jim Patillo


Re: Multiple Questions starting a Q2

bwtaudiowerks@...
 

It's a shame that percentage is so low. Hopefully I'll get it done. If I can find an O200 for a decent price and condition I probably won't walk away from it.


Re: Kevin Sheely N480KS

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Wonderful news Kevin.

Jerry

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 2:13 PM
To: Dan Yager - QBA Editor dan@... [Q-LIST]
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Kevin Sheely N480KS

 

 

Bruce,

I have been careful with my fuel filters, I am on my 3rd large fuel filter pair in 11.8 hours.

The pressure area of the vent for the fuel tank being negative might have been the solution. I moved it 12" to the side and I have had two flights since with no issues. I will be putting an instrument on the or vent line to verify this and report back to the group.

Kevin

 


From: 'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST] ;
To: ;
Subject: [Q-LIST] Kevin Sheely N480KS
Sent: Fri, Jan 2, 2015 4:42:38 PM

 

Kevin after reading the Q News letter the thought occurred to me that if you haven't already cleaned out or replaced the fuel filters to the engine and from main tank to header tank now is the time.  The engine slow down could very well be because of the filters.  No matter how careful you are the tanks get a lot of fiber glass dust and other things in them. 

The other thing to consider is looking into the fuel tank vent.  If there is a low area in the tubing it could be creating a p-trap effect like in plumbing. 

Also if the tank vent goes down and behind the exit area of the cowling there is a possibility of a low pressure area behind the exit.

One more thing to check would be the fuel cap and filler neck.  If there is a leak in the fuel cap the area is in another low pressure area.  It has brought down a few Q in the past.


Shooting form the hip.
Bruce Crain

____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54a6caa1c628a4aa13ad3st03vuc


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

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

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


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

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Q-LIST-digest@...
    Q-LIST-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/


Re: Kevin Sheely N480KS

Kevin Sheely
 

Bruce,

I have been careful with my fuel filters, I am on my 3rd large fuel filter pair in 11.8 hours.

The pressure area of the vent for the fuel tank being negative might have been the solution. I moved it 12" to the side and I have had two flights since with no issues. I will be putting an instrument on the or vent line to verify this and report back to the group.

Kevin


From: 'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST] ;
To: ;
Subject: [Q-LIST] Kevin Sheely N480KS
Sent: Fri, Jan 2, 2015 4:42:38 PM

Kevin after reading the Q News letter the thought occurred to me that if you haven't already cleaned out or replaced the fuel filters to the engine and from main tank to header tank now is the time.  The engine slow down could very well be because of the filters.  No matter how careful you are the tanks get a lot of fiber glass dust and other things in them. 

The other thing to consider is looking into the fuel tank vent.  If there is a low area in the tubing it could be creating a p-trap effect like in plumbing. 

Also if the tank vent goes down and behind the exit area of the cowling there is a possibility of a low pressure area behind the exit.

One more thing to check would be the fuel cap and filler neck.  If there is a leak in the fuel cap the area is in another low pressure area.  It has brought down a few Q in the past.


Shooting form the hip.
Bruce Crain

____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54a6caa1c628a4aa13ad3st03vuc


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

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

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


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

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Q-LIST-digest@...
    Q-LIST-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

13021 - 13040 of 55798