Date   

Re: 51%

Jay Scheevel
 

Also in the for-what-its-worth department. Here is a letter from the FSDO#66 that I recieved in 1984 when I was asking the same question. Seems to think that the Q-200 is acceptable. Ancient history now..
Cheers,
Jay

https://xa.yimg.com/df/Q-LIST/FSDO_response_letter_1984.pdf?token=s3q2pNifmZKGjD9KvLs5rxQxdrcjpKNiEGY4czDNidB6fmeoQjSjf-rzxfoPN3oeFuZK4ZBkVgYPLoXa7kvXbVJ5LNdbEzddAWOWgPJVgRLpC287hOa373ZGV2Y&type=download


New file uploaded to Q-LIST

Q-LIST@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Q-LIST
group.

File : /FSDO_response_letter_1984.pdf
Uploaded by : jay_scheevel <jay@...>
Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Q-LIST/files/FSDO_response_letter_1984.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=content&y=PROD_GRPS&locale=en_US&id=SLN15398

Regards,

jay_scheevel <jay@...>


Re: 51%

Patrick Panzera
 

For what it's worth, here's the article I wrote on the new 51% rule, days after it came out in 2009.

Note that I had to use the wayback machine to find it, as EAA has "lost" all the issues of the Experimenter eNewsletter - 3 years of work. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120313154351/http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris



Re: 51%

Sam Hoskins
 

When people ask me if my Q-200 came as a kit I respond "Yes, which means all the raw materials came in on the same truck".

Here's a little video of my kit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V5nNsYn_9A

Sam


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Thanks for the info guys.  In Canada  you need to prove it complies
with the 51% rule.  I can get an inspection that cost 435$ plus mileage
and lodging, so that is about 2500$ because of where I live to come and
see some foam and fiberglass.
The Q2 is not on the list of  TCA/FAA eligable kits, but there is also a
category that says"plans" built.
In the preamble of the plans it says to built the Q2 using the plans. 
So, I think if I change my application to say "plans built " using
premolded fuselage shells, that may work. The lady at MD-RA is trying to
help me out. I sent here a bunch of pictures of the parts to evaluate. 
Having said all this, any "Kit" airplane you buy from Wicks is only a
bunch of material, but is still considered a Kit airplane.  They may
need to revisit this classification.
 They have probably built at least twenty Q 2 in Canada,  so hopefully
common sence will prevail. Lt you know what happens.
 Canada Chris


Re: 51%

Jay Scheevel
 

The UK guys may be able to help. They have managed to get the Q2-Q200 listed on the roster of acceptable amateur built "kits". This fact may be of value towards convincing the Canadian authorities of the legitimacy of the Q2-Q200 meeting criteria required for approval.  Anyone across the pond care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q still building


Re: Short Field Takeoff

Larry Severson
 

Are there any CFIs who are qualified to train pilots in the Q2, especially in the Seattle area?


Re: 51%

Chris Walterson
 

Thanks for the info guys.  In Canada  you need to prove it complies with the 51% rule.  I can get an inspection that cost 435$ plus mileage and lodging, so that is about 2500$ because of where I live to come and see some foam and fiberglass.
The Q2 is not on the list of  TCA/FAA eligable kits, but there is also a category that says"plans" built.
In the preamble of the plans it says to built the Q2 using the plans.  So, I think if I change my application to say "plans built " using premolded fuselage shells, that may work. The lady at MD-RA is trying to help me out. I sent here a bunch of pictures of the parts to evaluate.  Having said all this, any "Kit" airplane you buy from Wicks is only a bunch of material, but is still considered a Kit airplane.  They may need to revisit this classification.
 They have probably built at least twenty Q 2 in Canada,  so hopefully common sence will prevail. Lt you know what happens.
 Canada Chris


Re: Short Field Takeoff

daniel charnews <danchar18@...>
 

The take off on the 2300 grass field is done in the fall and spring with
cool temperatures and light head winds blowing right down the field.


My Q2 has a rebuilt rotax 2100 with a hotter cam and a little over 40
hours on the engine.


The prop is a Props Inc. It looks like a metal prop done in maple.


The canard is the old original style with a vortex  generator kit. 
Every other vortex generator is installed.  This was done by a previous
owner after receiving advice from another builder.  You don't want too
much increased lift because you want the canard to stall first.  The
rear wings have turned down extensions to increase lift.  I have the
reflexor and I set the plane up at a 4000ft paved strip to get the max
lift without losing tailwheel control.


Again I weigh 150 lb and I do this alone.


When I fly out of the field the grass is very short and the ground is
very hard.


I am off the ground in about 1000Ft


I have flown the Q2 for about 50 hours and have about 600 hours total in
various planes.


The field is 50 ft above sea level.


Take a look        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMRobjNoIU


As I said before 3000 ft paved runway really should be the minimum.


Dan


Re: 51%

One Sky Dog
 

When I registered my Dragonfly the DAR removed the form from my documents package because it is plans built no kit ever produced. This would apply to a Q1 FYI.

Regards,
Charlie


On Nov 19, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Patrick Panzera editor@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

The 51% rule was revised several years ago making it much harder to comply, and there's no grandfathering. So even if the Q complied with the old rule, that doesn't mean anything anymore. 

Kit manufacturers have the option to have their kit(s) inspected by the FAA to be given a green light to advise as being compliant with the new rule.

There's an FAA form with three columns per line item where you check the appropriate box for who built the part. You (me), the kit manufacturer, or a hired gun.

If there are more checks in the "me" column than the other two columns combined, you win.

If not, all is not lost. You can't get it certificated in the EAB category, but you can get it certificated in the Experimental Exhibition category.

I'm on my cell right now or I'd find that checklists for you. Google can find it for you.

I hope this helps. 

Pat 



On Nov 19, 2017 11:53 AM, "Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Re: 51%

Eric <ekwaxman@...>
 

Great tip Pat, thank you.

FAA Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2011) Fixed Wing:


For filling-out/explaining above "checklist",  Amateur Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009) Job Aid :


Good info on this page for Amateur-Built Aircraft Kits(where above links were found): https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/

Eric

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Patrick Panzera editor@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


The 51% rule was revised several years ago making it much harder to comply, and there's no grandfathering. So even if the Q complied with the old rule, that doesn't mean anything anymore. 

Kit manufacturers have the option to have their kit(s) inspected by the FAA to be given a green light to advise as being compliant with the new rule.

There's an FAA form with three columns per line item where you check the appropriate box for who built the part. You (me), the kit manufacturer, or a hired gun.

If there are more checks in the "me" column than the other two columns combined, you win.

If not, all is not lost. You can't get it certificated in the EAB category, but you can get it certificated in the Experimental Exhibition category.

I'm on my cell right now or I'd find that checklists for you. Google can find it for you.

I hope this helps. 

Pat 



On Nov 19, 2017 11:53 AM, "Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris





Beautiful weekend for flying in Southern, FL

Kevin Sheeley
 

Hi all,

 

A great weekend of flying here in southern Florida.

 

A Friday evening local flight after work as a warm up.

 

An early Saturday morning flight to a pancake breakfast (F45 to X06) where I got to give my hometown buddy his first flight in a homebuilt. He had given me my first general aviation flight for teaching him how to waterski shortly after high school in a Piper Warrior. 

 

This morning I decided to go to Sebring (KSEF) for breakfast via a flight up the Atlantic coastline talking with Stuart, Fort Pierce and Vero Beach towers for practice, then around a restricted area just south of Orlando's airspace. A 192 mile leg for a 75 miles direct route. The flight back to F45 was relatively straight. Today was a reduced power cruiser flight (160 mph TAS) just enjoying my awesome Q200.

 

What a great freedom we have to enjoy what we love.

 

5.6 hours, 582 miles.

 

Kevin (Q200, dragger, O200A, 296 hours)



Re: 51%

Patrick Panzera
 

The 51% rule was revised several years ago making it much harder to comply, and there's no grandfathering. So even if the Q complied with the old rule, that doesn't mean anything anymore. 

Kit manufacturers have the option to have their kit(s) inspected by the FAA to be given a green light to advise as being compliant with the new rule.

There's an FAA form with three columns per line item where you check the appropriate box for who built the part. You (me), the kit manufacturer, or a hired gun.

If there are more checks in the "me" column than the other two columns combined, you win.

If not, all is not lost. You can't get it certificated in the EAB category, but you can get it certificated in the Experimental Exhibition category.

I'm on my cell right now or I'd find that checklists for you. Google can find it for you.

I hope this helps. 

Pat 



On Nov 19, 2017 11:53 AM, "Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Re: 51%

Mike Dwyer
 

Isn't the fact that the FAA is registering them as Experimental proof that they meet the 50% rule?
As I understand it, the factory has to present data to the FAA and then the FAA makes a ruling.  This wasn't done 30+ years ago so I doubt you'll find anything on the 50% rule.
Mike N3QP Q200

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris



Re: 51%

Sam Hoskins
 

The FAA won't have anything definitive. I haven't heard of anyone having any sort of a problem in that regard.  Just show the plans and your photo record, I would think that would be enough.

Sam

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:53 PM Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


51%

Chris Walterson
 

Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Re: Short Field Takeoff

Jim Patillo
 

Q2 on a 2300' grass strip with a Rotax engine is asking for it. How many hours have you been flying a Quickie? I've got about 2000 take offs and landings on mine and wouldn't do that! You must have really large balls or a death wish? Any trees around either end? Sea level?

Good luck with that.

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200


Re: Short Field Takeoff

daniel charnews <danchar18@...>
 

I have been using a grass strip (2300 ft) with my quicky2 with the rotax
engine.  I weigh 150 lbs.  For me the problem is not the take off but
landing and stopping before I run out of runway.  I have differential
hand brakes and I steer side to side with the brakes as I land.  Either
landing or take off it quite exciting.  If I were you I would stay out
of airports with less than 3000 ft.


Dan


Re: Around dallas,fort worth

JMasal@...
 

living in carrollton
hangar in midlothian


-----Original Message-----
From: rwehba@... [Q-LIST]


Re: Around dallas,fort worth

ronnie wehba
 

Where you at ,I am in granbury


Re: Around dallas,fort worth

C R
 

None down at Spinks that I know of or the EAA chapter in Arlington but if there's one anywhere else I'd love to go see it as well. I feel like there was a Q in Mansfield or Midlothian but I could just be making that up.

9161 - 9180 of 55033