Date   

Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

Glad you're still with us Charlie. Not sure how comfortable you are sharing that story but it's love to be it of you are. 

What's the issue with landing speed anyway?  It's basically the same as a 152. What plans is someone coming from that that's too fast? 


On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Who would engineer this BRS? Jim Handbury died developing the SR22 system if I remember correct. What would you use as a test vehicle to assure you that the whole system works reliably? Just asking? 

Another factor is parachutes do not always work as planned. I experienced a structural flight vehicle failure and subsequent parachute failure. It was not a Q bird but still unexpected double failure.

Regards,

Charlie


On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I agree with Sam.  If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.  

But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!

Paul Fisher
Q-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 years

On Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at.  Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.


Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2
 
 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins
Q-200, 2,000+ hours



On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

One Sky Dog
 

Who would engineer this BRS? Jim Handbury died developing the SR22 system if I remember correct. What would you use as a test vehicle to assure you that the whole system works reliably? Just asking? 

Another factor is parachutes do not always work as planned. I experienced a structural flight vehicle failure and subsequent parachute failure. It was not a Q bird but still unexpected double failure.

Regards,

Charlie


On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I agree with Sam.  If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.  

But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!

Paul Fisher
Q-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 years

On Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at.  Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.


Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2
 
 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins
Q-200, 2,000+ hours



On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Paul Fisher
 

I agree with Sam.  If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.  

But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!

Paul Fisher
Q-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 years

On Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at.  Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.


Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2
 
 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins
Q-200, 2,000+ hours



On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Matthew Curcio
 

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at.  Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.


Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2
 
 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins
Q-200, 2,000+ hours



On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Sam Hoskins
 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins
Q-200, 2,000+ hours



On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

Reach out to Richard at fast little airplanes. He'll know the answer. 


On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


BRS Chute in a Q2

Matthew Curcio
 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.


How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.


Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
 
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more

Joshua Hall
 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?


Re: Any unfinished Tri-Q/ Q200 kits

Gary McKirdy
 

Yes I have a photo album which I will find and photograph soon. Are you on Wattsapp?

On 9 Dec 2017 22:39, "Uzair Khan uzair850@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Do you have pictures of the kit that I can look at?
Would be good to know how much of the work has been done.

Thanks,
Uzair

On Sunday, December 10, 2017, 3:41:38 AM GMT+5:30, Gary McKirdy gary.mckirdy21@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


 

Where are you located? 

I have a spare partly built Q200 kit in England bought from a Swissair engineer. 

Lots of good equipment with it and flying surfaces load tested to meet swiss requirement.

Regards
Gary Mckirdy

On 9 Dec 2017 14:58, "uzair850@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Hi Guys, I have plans for Quickie 1, purchased from quickheads, but was interested in 2 seating airplane.

Been searching for any Tri-Q/Q200 unfinished kit and since quickheads.com is down, it has become hard to even look for ads related to Quickies.

Let me know if anyone has a kit and wants to part with it.


Re: Any unfinished Tri-Q/ Q200 kits

Sky Hawk
 

Do you have pictures of the kit that I can look at?
Would be good to know how much of the work has been done.

Thanks,
Uzair

On Sunday, December 10, 2017, 3:41:38 AM GMT+5:30, Gary McKirdy gary.mckirdy21@... [Q-LIST] wrote:


 

Where are you located? 

I have a spare partly built Q200 kit in England bought from a Swissair engineer. 

Lots of good equipment with it and flying surfaces load tested to meet swiss requirement.

Regards
Gary Mckirdy

On 9 Dec 2017 14:58, "uzair850@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Hi Guys, I have plans for Quickie 1, purchased from quickheads, but was interested in 2 seating airplane.

Been searching for any Tri-Q/Q200 unfinished kit and since quickheads.com is down, it has become hard to even look for ads related to Quickies.

Let me know if anyone has a kit and wants to part with it.


Re: Any unfinished Tri-Q/ Q200 kits

Gary McKirdy
 

Where are you located? 

I have a spare partly built Q200 kit in England bought from a Swissair engineer. 

Lots of good equipment with it and flying surfaces load tested to meet swiss requirement.

Regards
Gary Mckirdy

On 9 Dec 2017 14:58, "uzair850@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Hi Guys, I have plans for Quickie 1, purchased from quickheads, but was interested in 2 seating airplane.

Been searching for any Tri-Q/Q200 unfinished kit and since quickheads.com is down, it has become hard to even look for ads related to Quickies.

Let me know if anyone has a kit and wants to part with it.


Any unfinished Tri-Q/ Q200 kits

Sky Hawk
 

Hi Guys, I have plans for Quickie 1, purchased from quickheads, but was interested in 2 seating airplane.

Been searching for any Tri-Q/Q200 unfinished kit and since quickheads.com is down, it has become hard to even look for ads related to Quickies.

Let me know if anyone has a kit and wants to part with it.


Re: progress

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Fond memories



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 12/8/17 7:03 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-list@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] progress

 

Now on to primer, sand, etc.

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: progress

Kevin Boddicker
 

looks good Jay!
Keep on keeping on!

On Dec 8, 2017, at 6:03 PM, 'Jay Scheevel SGT' jay@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


Now on to primer, sand, etc. 

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building




progress

Jay Scheevel
 

Now on to primer, sand, etc.

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: Success

Jim Patillo
 

Jerry,

Just curious. How many hours are on your engine?

Glad to hear you got the oil pressure going.

Jim

N46JP - Q200


Back-up Q-list

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi All,

After the first Yahoo Groups shutdown, I started a backup site.  Yahoo has since crashed again, and the word is Yahoo is eliminating funding for Yahoo Groups support.  


I would recommend that frequent users sign up for the new group (link below), so we have a place to meet and talk when Yahoo Groups crashes again, and if they decide not to fix it next time it breaks, we won't be left in the dark with no way to communicate with each other. It works the same way this group works, by e-mail and/or online. Please sign up as a back-up.


Maybe Jon Matcho can copy the archived files from this Yahoo Group to the Quickheads site, so they are not lost into the ether when Yahoo finally bites the dust for good. The Google group allows attachments to your posts, but does not have a separate files and photos section, so any attachments have to searched for along with the original post.


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/q-list2


Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building




Re: Success

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Hi Kevin.  Thx for responding to my oil pressure problem.  Glad to gave that fixed.

 It was 60deg here today.  Also high for this time of year.  Did compression check and borescoped the valves.  All looks good. Some lead deposits around no.2 cylinder exhaust valve.  The big cold front is supposed to hit here on Tuesday  thru the weekend.  Guess my flight will have to wait. 

Take care and have wonder Christmas.
Jerry 


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Kevin Boddicker trumanst@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 12/3/17 8:15 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "'jcrain2@...' jcrain2@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Success

 

Good news Jerry.

Just finished my inspection today, and flew for an hour and a half. Fairly unusual for 50 degree temps in northern Iowa in Dec, but i like it. 


On Dec 3, 2017, at 7:18 AM, 'Jerry Marstall' jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


Hello Good People,

I want to thank everyone again who offered solutions for correcting my loss of oil pressure problem.

Due to the convoluted installation of my oil filter and oil cooler, the easiest one for me to try was Paul’s suggestion that was ratified by Kevin.

It worked as advertised.  [BIG grin].  So I am joyfully on my way with my condition inspection.  

 

Thanks guys,

Jerry




Re: Success

Kevin Boddicker
 

Good news Jerry.
Just finished my inspection today, and flew for an hour and a half. Fairly unusual for 50 degree temps in northern Iowa in Dec, but i like it. 


On Dec 3, 2017, at 7:18 AM, 'Jerry Marstall' jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


Hello Good People,

I want to thank everyone again who offered solutions for correcting my loss of oil pressure problem.

Due to the convoluted installation of my oil filter and oil cooler, the easiest one for me to try was Paul’s suggestion that was ratified by Kevin.

It worked as advertised.  [BIG grin].  So I am joyfully on my way with my condition inspection.  

 

Thanks guys,

Jerry




Update on Quickie Builders Association / Quickheads website

Jon Matcho
 

Jay Scheevel wrote:

 

> …I have set up a Google Groups site. It functions very similarly to Yahoo Groups. It is essentially just a e-mail or online posting list like this one.

 

The Cozy group did exactly this for similar reasons.

 

> The Google Group is called Q-list2.

 

May I suggest calling the group “Quickie Mailing List” so we can more easily be found by someone searching “quickie”.  There’s already a Qlist there and now a “Q-list2”, and I find both naming conventions somewhat cryptic. 

 

I can assist however you see fit.

 

Thanks,

Jon

 

 

Jon Matcho

QBA Administrator

Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E

www.quickheads.com

 

 

 

7241 - 7260 of 53179