Date   

Re: Update on Quickie Builders Association / Quickheads website

Q plusTwo
 

Thanks for keeping up with this Jon. As someone with a QBA "auto-renew" it has been fairly irksome not having access to the old newsletters for research the last few months.

-MD
Q2, still building


Re: 51%

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Imraan,

I did not have any fit issues with the main tank over time. The tank bottom bonded at the edges and to the internal braces made it hold its shape very well.  Before I bonded it permanently in place, I had to cut a hole in the tank bottom to match up with the sump drain in the belly of the fuselage. When I put the tank in permanently, I had the glass bottom of the tank bonded to the belly by flox ribbons 1. around the entire perimeter, 2. in a closed circle around the circumference of the drain sump and 3. at the points where the internal braces meet the tank bottom. In order to keep the rest of the un-floxed tank bottom from chafing (if the fuselage flexes or when fuel sloshes), I put some thin patches of felt, just to keep the unbonded tank bottom separated slightly from the glass on the inside of the fuselage shells.

Also instead of the PVC vertical fill-pipe, I built a vertical channel on the passenger side of the tank that bonds to the side of the fuselage. I have a flush-mount filler cap that is mounted in the side of the fuselage to fill the main tank. I also have one of these in the top of the header tank. Since both of these filler necks are metal, I have connected a ground-braid running from the filler neck running inside the tank to a ground stud on the bottom of each tank. I have verified electrical continuity from each filler neck to the nose gear fork and/or firewall which will drain any static charge from the surface of the fuel in both tanks.

Keep building time in your Tri-Q. I need a ride sometime!

Cheers,
Jay


Re: 51%

quickieaircraft
 

Jay, thanks for the detail.  The precision of your work is refreshing!

Did the main tank bond in with no fit issues?  I imagine over the months/years of construction between fitting and installation, there was be geometric creep in the mating surfaces?

I have the slider canopy so not sure on the hinge reinforcement, but I've observed some variation of individual happiness with hinged canopy as a function of prevailing wind speed--the amount of reinforcement might depend on how windy your home base is.

Tri Q200 ~65hrs.


Update on Quickie Builders Association / Quickheads website

Jon Matcho
 

Hello,

 

I have identified the issue to be with a subscription renewal glitch with the hosting provider (www.inmotionhosting.com)  The root cause was related to an outage event in 2014 whereby the provider changed a setting on their end that prevented any notification emails from being sent regarding their so-called “scheduled expiration”.  

 

While I certainly can take responsibility for allowing this to happen, I do not require such a unique process for ensuring availability and up-time for several other websites and Internet services involving a variety of vendors and technologies.  Considering this and Inmotion’s inability to acknowledge this as customer disservice, the website will be moved and rebuilt on a new platform.

 

No content has been lost and I assure you all will be back online.  Any supporters with an active subscription will be granted a full 12 months from when the site returns online.  I will keep you posted as developments are made.

 

In the meantime, feel free to motivate the Quickie fans at the Canard Zone’s Quickie sub-forum:  http://www.canardzone.com/forum/forum/384-quickie-q2-q200-tri-q/

 

Thank you for your support and patience!

Jon

 

 

Jon Matcho

QBA Administrator

Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E

www.quickheads.com

 

 

 

 

 


Re: 51% [4 Attachments]

Jay Scheevel
 

That sounds like a good plan Chris. Keep having fun!

Cheers,
Jay


Re: 51% [4 Attachments]

Chris Walterson
 

Jay----------  Thanks . I found some info under Jon Finley about the reinforcement for the hinges.
As for the header. I am going to take the front top shell and lay it upside down and then add the header and reiforcement and the canopy mounts.  Let gravity work.   I will leave this shell off as long as possible.  I can glass the partial sides and bottom of the firewall to give the fuselage a bit of structure.  The fuel tank and bulkheads will tighten it all up. Giving it some thought I may even install the canard before I install the top of the fuselage. Gotta think about it.
As for the main fuel tank, I did it a bit different than in the plans. I made it similar to the Dragonfly [ swear word] tank.
 I made a female mould out of plywood and layed in the foam so I could glass the inside of the tank first.. Install the bulkheads and flip it over and glass the outside. There are also two large inspection holes in the middle of each seat with a glass to glass flange.  About 5 inch diameter. This allows you to reach in and do a flox finger wipe in all the joints.  When you are satisfied you make a rounds glass patch 6 inches in diameter and flox it over the inspection hole.
Having fun-----------------  Chris


Re: 51%

Jay Scheevel
 

With respect to the header. I cut a section of the forward fuselage out and built the header tank separately with the top of the header being that removed fuselage section. I sloshed and pressure-tested the tank. I left this tank out of the fuselage as long as possible, so that I could work on the firewall and other items by reaching in from the top (photos attached).

I have mixed feelings about that now, because bonding the header tank back into the fuselage was difficult, but on the plus side, it saved me a lot of time on the firewall items and I am confident about the integrity of the seal of the tank. 

I think in retrospect, I would only cut about an 8" wide swath off of the forward edge of the upper fuselage shell and leave that off for almost the entire building project in order to have access the the firewall, then bond it back in place later to the firewall per plans.

If I did it now, I would build the header like I did the main tank: For the main tank, I put duct tape down over the entire area on the lower fuselage where the main tank goes (it is good as mold release). I laid up 2 plies of BID glass over that area. Then I bonded the main tank per plans to that glass-layup (instead of bonding it to the fuselage bottom). Once this cured, I pulled the whole tank assembly out, sloshed and pressure tested it, added the fittings, and fuel-filler riser, etc. I also bonded the center console assembly in place on the main tank so I could put the tank in and out of the plane as much as I wanted to until I fit and installed a bunch of the other stuff (like control stick and linkages). Finally, at a late stage, I floxed the main tank to the fuselage shell and added BID tapes around the edges per plans.

Like I say, If doing it again, I would probably build the header the same way I did for the main tank, then just bond the whole assembly to the upper fuselage shell at an appropriate time instead of cutting the entire top of the header from the fuselage.

As far as support for canopy hinges, that may be a good idea. I do not have that hinge arrangement, so maybe others could comment whether they think it is a good idea.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: 51%

Chris Walterson
 

Jay------------------  Thanks for the info. I will install the elevators so 48 will match 48 on the canard.  A while back I was reading where the airodynamics are better when the elevator is a bit larger than the wing profile. I think it was Jim Bede that was talking. I'm not going  to play with a proven thing so I will install them as planned.
 Glassed the split line on the tail section and managed to cut the slots in the aluminum rudder tube and micro it into the rudder.
 I have the header tank finished with the overflow tube and vent installed.
 I was talking to another friend and he mentioned it may be a good idea to lay a few layers of glass on the inside front part of the fuselage shell before I install the header tank, to give it more support for the hinge installation for the front opening canopy. Seems like a good idea. Any comments??
 Take care--------------  Chris


Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more

Jon Matcho
 

Quickheads.com is being brought back online.  It is not dead.  On the contrary, it will be enhanced.

 

Thanks,

Jon

 

 

Jon Matcho

QBA Administrator

Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E

www.quickheads.com

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Looks like Quickheads is no more

 

 

It looks like Quickheads.com has disappeared from the web. RIP.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: 51%

Jay Scheevel
 

I know I navigated that process when I did it, but my memory fails me exactly how. In the end (where I am now), the elevators are fitted to the slot core by sanding away the edge of the slot core to allow for the gap specified in the plans. The tangent on the round section of the elevator makes a nice transition to the canard regardless of how much you have to sand off the slot core edges and any mismatch is small enough to have minimal impact on aerodynamics so far back on the canard chord.

I could never really get the whole gap to be exactly uniform along the entire length of the elevator (or aileron) because there is always a bit of mismatch in the exact top and bottom straightness of both independently built components. The positioning and mounting of the pivots on both ends of the elevator plays into the process as well.

It all works out in the end though. I am happy with my fit, even though I was a bit confused like you are about the lack of methodology laid out in the plans.

BL references are always absolute referenced to a vertical plane through the center of the fuselage, so BL48.8 on the elevator should line up with BL48.8 on the canard.

Cheers,
Jay


Re: 51%

Chris Walterson
 

Ended up attaching my tail sections together with micro. Lined it all up nice with rubber bands, 1/8 plywood and drywall screw. I am now waiting for the micro to set and then I can glass the outside split line.
While I am waiting, I started to work on the elevator and ailerons. The aileron cores are trimmed to 48 inches. That's easy. The elevators are trimmed to 72 inches. I know in the plans it says somewhere how to trim the 85 inch cores to 72, but can't seem to find it. The cores are from BR15 to BR100 so how are the elevators trimmed?
 Does BR48 on the elevator core line up with BR48 on the canard or is it better to trim it a bit smaller so the elevators fit into the trailing slot easier.
 I'll spend a few more hrs going over the plans again and see if I can find the info, but I am open to any help.  Thanks----
Chris


Re: Short Field Takeoff

daniel charnews <danchar18@...>
 


Re: Short Field Takeoff

daniel charnews <danchar18@...>
 


Re: Short Field Takeoff

daniel charnews <danchar18@...>
 


Re: 51% [1 Attachment]

One Sky Dog
 

Jay,

The real key factor is if it is a kit it will be on the FAA list. The 51% part is the approved kit has to have 51% of the work done by amateurs. Second key factor there can be many builders but one has to be the "primary builder" do not even get into how much you personally built. The FAA does not have a definition of "primary builder" but if asked how much you built? You should respond with "I am the primary builder". This is important if you want to apply for the repairman certificate that gives you the authority to inspect the plane. There is no requirement for you to personally build 51% however some inspectors will not sign the form you need for the repairman certificate. There is no requirement to tell the FAA how much you built. Loose lips sink ships, and get your repairman certificate denied.

Regards,

Charlie J

Do not send money!


On Nov 24, 2017, at 10:24 AM, jay@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

That's good news Chris,

My DAR recently told me that the real key factor is having enough photos of the build (make sure you get into the frame regularly) that it demonstrates that you built the majority of the plane. As Paul said, at least on this side of the border, they are just checking to see that it is a "homebuilt" and that functionally it is a sound construction, nothing about it having safe flying characteristics.

I also remember a similar building stage as yours from long ago. Here is my version of your photo (taken almost exactly 32 years ago using a polaroid instant camera!). I found the same thing you did with the rear shells warping a bit, once the untrimmed edge was removed. Makes it look like a birds beak slightly open. I don't remember how I handled that re-fitting, but there are a number of ways you could think of that would take care of it without sacrificing any strength or fit. Have fun.

Cheers,
Jay


Re: 51%

Jon Swenson
 

when I registered My TriQ I registered it as "built from parts"  which was one of the options on the form.  It required much less documentation as to continuity of ownership or bill of sale.  I don't remember the details but it would be worth looking into.


--
Jon Swenson


Re: 51% [1 Attachment]

Chris Walterson
 

Jay----------  I am taking lots of digital photos to document it all.  I  have the self leveling lazer level  along with a digital level and that sure is a big help compared to when  I built the other birds. What I am doing is a bit different when joining the tail. What I have done was to make the tail detachable and have all the glass layed up and the tabs in place while the tail is in two pieces.
I then remove the top section of tail and lay in the tail bulkhead to the bottom fuselage.  Reinstall the top of the tail section to the fuselage. Crawl inside and finish taping the tail bulkhead. Line up and glass the inside of the tail split line and then install the other tail bulkhead. So far it seems like a good idea. I'll let you know how it works out.
 I have also made my jigging blocks for the fuselage out of 1/2 inch plywood and put a drywall screw through the fuselage into the jigging form at all stations. Nothing moves.  I made my table like in one of the newsletters where I can remove a screw and slide the entire tail back while still in the jigging forms.
I have finished my header tank today and have the final side of the vertical fin done. I have my com antenna in the fin and also the pitot tube.
 Should be able top start on the ailerons and elevators tomorrow.
 Having fun--------------  Canada Chris


Re: 51%

Jay Scheevel
 

That's good news Chris,

My DAR recently told me that the real key factor is having enough photos of the build (make sure you get into the frame regularly) that it demonstrates that you built the majority of the plane. As Paul said, at least on this side of the border, they are just checking to see that it is a "homebuilt" and that functionally it is a sound construction, nothing about it having safe flying characteristics.

I also remember a similar building stage as yours from long ago. Here is my version of your photo (taken almost exactly 32 years ago using a polaroid instant camera!). I found the same thing you did with the rear shells warping a bit, once the untrimmed edge was removed. Makes it look like a birds beak slightly open. I don't remember how I handled that re-fitting, but there are a number of ways you could think of that would take care of it without sacrificing any strength or fit. Have fun.

Cheers,
Jay


Re: 51% [1 Attachment]

Paul Fisher
 

Oh, and by the way, yes your picture really did bring back memories!!

Paul

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Good news.  The inspectors in Canada recognize that  Q2 is way more
than a 51% build airplane so I am good to continue.
Now for a question. There needs to be at least two inspections. Precover
and final. At what stage does the FAA do the precover. Building the wing
and canard you almost need to do all the glassing at once incorporating
the spars into the building process. I am going to be talking to my
building inspector to see what he wants, but I was curious as to the
requirement in the states.
 Here's a picture to bring back memories.  Take care--------------
Canada Chris



Re: 51% [1 Attachment]

Paul Fisher
 

The FAA eliminated the "pre-cover" inspection a long time ago.  I only had to have my Q-200 inspected once just prior to flight.  It was inspected several times by EAA Technical Counselors, but they aren't required.  I had the FAA come (rather than a DAR), and he issued the airworthiness certificate on the spot.  That was 27 years ago, but the rules have not changed significantly since then.

Sorry, your process sounds more involved!

Paul A. Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Good news.  The inspectors in Canada recognize that  Q2 is way more
than a 51% build airplane so I am good to continue.
Now for a question. There needs to be at least two inspections. Precover
and final. At what stage does the FAA do the precover. Building the wing
and canard you almost need to do all the glassing at once incorporating
the spars into the building process. I am going to be talking to my
building inspector to see what he wants, but I was curious as to the
requirement in the states.
 Here's a picture to bring back memories.  Take care--------------
Canada Chris


7061 - 7080 of 52966