Date   

Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Allan Farr
 

Hi. I didn't know about that - love Comanches (my dad had a 180 Comanche)


Re: Finger Brakes

britmcman99
 

Finger brakes fit nicely onto the center console and thereby may be used from either seat

Phil


On Dec 14, 2017, at 3:31 PM, mskiby@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

What are the master cylinders used for the differential finger brakes?  Also can I tie them into toe brakes to give the passenger access to brakes in an emergency?  Thanks for any help here.


Re: Finger Brakes

Sam Hoskins
 

Simply get another Airhart master cylinder and use them both.


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:31 PM mskiby@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

What are the master cylinders used for the differential finger brakes?  Also can I tie them into toe brakes to give the passenger access to brakes in an emergency?  Thanks for any help here.


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

You thought they only went to 260?
In 1967 one PA-24 was modified with a 300 hp Lycoming engine. It did not enter production. I saw this prototype at an exhibition in the mid-70's in the Chicago area. Not sure why it was there, but it landed fast...
Well there was 400 series, but its airframe was substantially different than the original PA-24

Cheers,
Jay


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Allan Farr
 

"Comanche 300"?;)


Finger Brakes

Martin Skiby
 

What are the master cylinders used for the differential finger brakes?  Also can I tie them into toe brakes to give the passenger access to brakes in an emergency?  Thanks for any help here.


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Mike Dwyer
 

But, to design a parachute system you want to be able to open it at Vne so put 230 mph in the formula.  :)
Mike


On Dec 14, 2017 5:08 PM, "ryan goodman elboy0712@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Sorry Jay, but that was not what I saw as an apples to apples comparison and here is why. I’m happy to be wrong here, but this is where I was coming from.

Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in in the area of 70 for final approach(Though the book says 85 which definitely kills my original comparison). It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong)  that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly it all the way down to avoid bucking. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. That is my logic for the 7mph difference i mentioned and my reason for the comparison on approach speeds.  I wont for a second suggest  that a similar speed= similar skill required to land it. I’m aware that there is a reason it is highly advised that folks get some real dual time with an experienced pilot in a q before forging out alone.

Matt, let me finish that formula for you. You know “Science 101” K.E. = 1/2 m vand I will do so with Jays numbers just to keep this on you guys side of the argument.


Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots (22m/s)
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb. (757kg)
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots (32m/s)
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb. (544kg)
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

 

.5(757) x (22)2 = 183194 kg-m2/s2

.5(544)x(32)= 131648 kg-m2/s2

Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in on the area of 70 for final approach. It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong)  that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly out all the way down. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:54 AM, jay@... [Q-LIST]
<Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Here are the relevant data:

Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

A better comparison for the Q200 would be a Falco Series IV landing with no flaps (stall of 62 knots). Falco has a wing loading of 16.8 lb./sq. ft. and power loading of 11.3 lbs./hp. The Falco is not exactly a 152.

For a factory aircraft speed comparison to the Q200, think Comanche 300, landing with no flaps (and maybe with the gear up!).

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

One other point, Ryan. Your kinetic energy formula is correct, but we are not worried about how much damage one plane does to the ground in comparison to another plane. We should be more worried about what your body feels when it hits the wall. To make this comparison, the mass number should be the same (your body weight) in both formulas. Then you will get a good feel for what the difference in landing speeds does to your internal organs if you come to a dead stop (no pun intended):

.5(90) x (22)2 = 21780 kg-(m/s)2

.5(90)x(32)= 46080 kg-(m/s)2


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

Thanks for he numbers Paul, I have already said I have yet to fly my Q and was operating only with the numbers I read for the Q in an apples for apples comparison. I'm not going to continue to argue a case that I seem to be in error on. Have a great day.

On Thursday, December 14, 2017, 3:39:22 PM MST, ryan goodman elboy0712@... [Q-LIST] wrote:


 

I hear what you're saying Jay, and that's why I explained my line of thinking for comparing the same to same. As I said, happy to be wrong. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, jay@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Ryan, You need to listen to people on this group if you want to get a realistic picture of what to expect when you fly your plane. No one is blowing smoke here. Your comparison is not valid.

The Q-pilots that are responding to your posts are telling you what to expect. They will quit responding if you do not show some degree of eagerness to learn.

As far as Q200 pattern speeds go, most of the Q200 pilots I have talked to turn base to final around 100mph, over the fence at 80-85 and touch down around 75 or so. If you don't believe me, have a look at the paper posted on the left side of the panel that belongs to one of the guys that has the most Q200 hours:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CIq_IiXPXKA/WGfW4K_ZSBI/AAAAAAAAILA/XJJGWr7YMe0a6nRyPaVxd7_W6d_4VQADwCLcB/s1600/IMAG3841.jpg

 


You do not land a 152 at the approach speed. If you try that, it will not stay on the ground when you flare. Don't know how much flight time you have, but the guys on this forum that you are talking to probably have hundreds of thousands of hours in total, and they have at least many thousands of those hours in Q's.  Pay attention to what they say, their advice will serve you well.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Paul Fisher
 

I'm trying to stay out of this ("if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"), but I will provide some real world numbers.  I've been flying my Q-200 taildragger for 27 years and have about 1,650 hours on it, so I think I can speak authoritatively about my particular airplane.

In a typical pattern I slow down to 120mph on downwind.  Abeam the numbers I slow to 100mph.  On short final I slow to 90mph.  My plane stops flying at 80mph, so I always touchdown at or above that number.

I have flown 152s.  I can't quote the speeds, but I know things happen considerably faster in my Q-200.  In my opinion anyone who thinks they are about the same has clearly never flown a Q-200 and is doing the community a disservice by implying they are.  Just my opinion.

Paul Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

On Dec 14, 2017 4:12 PM, "ryan goodman elboy0712@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Sorry Jay, but that was not what I saw as an apples to apples comparison and here is why. I’m happy to be wrong here, but this is where I was coming from.

Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in in the area of 70 for final approach(Though the book says 85 which definitely kills my original comparison). It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong)  that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly it all the way down to avoid bucking. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. That is my logic for the 7mph difference i mentioned and my reason for the comparison on approach speeds.  I wont for a second suggest  that a similar speed= similar skill required to land it. I’m aware that there is a reason it is highly advised that folks get some real dual time with an experienced pilot in a q before forging out alone.

Matt, let me finish that formula for you. You know “Science 101” K.E. = 1/2 m vand I will do so with Jays numbers just to keep this on you guys side of the argument.


Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots (22m/s)
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb. (757kg)
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots (32m/s)
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb. (544kg)
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

 

.5(757) x (22)2 = 183194 kg-m2/s2

.5(544)x(32)= 131648 kg-m2/s2

Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in on the area of 70 for final approach. It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong)  that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly out all the way down. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:54 AM, jay@... [Q-LIST]
<Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Here are the relevant data:

Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

A better comparison for the Q200 would be a Falco Series IV landing with no flaps (stall of 62 knots). Falco has a wing loading of 16.8 lb./sq. ft. and power loading of 11.3 lbs./hp. The Falco is not exactly a 152.

For a factory aircraft speed comparison to the Q200, think Comanche 300, landing with no flaps (and maybe with the gear up!).

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

I hear what you're saying Jay, and that's why I explained my line of thinking for comparing the same to same. As I said, happy to be wrong. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, jay@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Ryan, You need to listen to people on this group if you want to get a realistic picture of what to expect when you fly your plane. No one is blowing smoke here. Your comparison is not valid.

The Q-pilots that are responding to your posts are telling you what to expect. They will quit responding if you do not show some degree of eagerness to learn.

As far as Q200 pattern speeds go, most of the Q200 pilots I have talked to turn base to final around 100mph, over the fence at 80-85 and touch down around 75 or so. If you don't believe me, have a look at the paper posted on the left side of the panel that belongs to one of the guys that has the most Q200 hours:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CIq_IiXPXKA/WGfW4K_ZSBI/AAAAAAAAILA/XJJGWr7YMe0a6nRyPaVxd7_W6d_4VQADwCLcB/s1600/IMAG3841.jpg

 


You do not land a 152 at the approach speed. If you try that, it will not stay on the ground when you flare. Don't know how much flight time you have, but the guys on this forum that you are talking to probably have hundreds of thousands of hours in total, and they have at least many thousands of those hours in Q's.  Pay attention to what they say, their advice will serve you well.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

Ryan, You need to listen to people on this group if you want to get a realistic picture of what to expect when you fly your plane. No one is blowing smoke here. Your comparison is not valid.

The Q-pilots that are responding to your posts are telling you what to expect. They will quit responding if you do not show some degree of eagerness to learn.

As far as Q200 pattern speeds go, most of the Q200 pilots I have talked to turn base to final around 100mph, over the fence at 80-85 and touch down around 75 or so. If you don't believe me, have a look at the paper posted on the left side of the panel that belongs to one of the guys that has the most Q200 hours:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CIq_IiXPXKA/WGfW4K_ZSBI/AAAAAAAAILA/XJJGWr7YMe0a6nRyPaVxd7_W6d_4VQADwCLcB/s1600/IMAG3841.jpg

 


You do not land a 152 at the approach speed. If you try that, it will not stay on the ground when you flare. Don't know how much flight time you have, but the guys on this forum that you are talking to probably have hundreds of thousands of hours in total, and they have at least many thousands of those hours in Q's.  Pay attention to what they say, their advice will serve you well.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

 Sorry Jay, but that was not what I saw as an apples to apples comparison and here is why. I’m happy to be wrong here, but this is where I was coming from.

Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in in the area of 70 for final approach(Though the book says 85 which definitely kills my original comparison). It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong)  that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly it all the way down to avoid bucking. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. That is my logic for the 7mph difference i mentioned and my reason for the comparison on approach speeds.  I wont for a second suggest  that a similar speed= similar skill required to land it. I’m aware that there is a reason it is highly advised that folks get some real dual time with an experienced pilot in a q before forging out alone.

Matt, let me finish that formula for you. You know “Science 101” K.E. = 1/2 m vand I will do so with Jays numbers just to keep this on you guys side of the argument.


Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots (22m/s)
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb. (757kg)
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots (32m/s)
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb. (544kg)
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

 

.5(757) x (22)2 = 183194 kg-m2/s2

.5(544)x(32)= 131648 kg-m2/s2

Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in on the area of 70 for final approach. It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong)  that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly out all the way down. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:54 AM, jay@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Here are the relevant data:

Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

A better comparison for the Q200 would be a Falco Series IV landing with no flaps (stall of 62 knots). Falco has a wing loading of 16.8 lb./sq. ft. and power loading of 11.3 lbs./hp. The Falco is not exactly a 152.

For a factory aircraft speed comparison to the Q200, think Comanche 300, landing with no flaps (and maybe with the gear up!).

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

Don't know where you getting your numbers from, but they are wrong. See my prior post, but here is a repeat of the landing speeds from that post:

Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots

This is a difference of 20 knots, not 7mph. Big difference there.


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

I think in the unlikely circumstance that you would need a BRS, It would make more sense just to routinely wear a parachute as your seat back and convert your canopy hinge to disconnect with release pins. Then if you feel the need, use release pins and jump out.

The use of the BRS on the SR-22 leads to a totalling of the airframe because of the lines ripping through the skins. It was difficult to get for Cirrus owners to get hull insured for quite some time, since most other planes can be emergency landed and repaired, but the minute you pull the chute on the Cirrus, it is totaled. I would expect a similar destruction for a Quickie. The damage would be about the same as riding it down with no BRS.

There have been a number of emergency landings of Q2's, leading to damaged aircraft but many were still repairable and occupants suffered mostly minor injuries, even in cases where the entire airframe was toast. Barring a fire on landing, the Q2 airframe protects the occupants pretty well despite the high landing speeds.

If the wings and control systems are functional and you don't hit any large obstructions prior to putting the wheels on the ground, you are probably going to do as well or better than you would with a BRS deployed.

Also, you have a little more choice about where to put it down if you glide it down. With the chute out, you take what you get.

There was one case of a pilot on this group who had an engine out while flying over the mountains in British Columbia or Western Alberta (not sure exactly where). He put it down on a winding mountain highway and was not injured seriously. I think more damage was done to the plane by the rescue crew than by the forced landing, if I recall correctly.

As far as your plane based in Mojave, You have Edwards, Lancaster, Victorville, Barstow, even Tehachapi or Bakersfield. I think you are golden if you need an emergency field. Just keep sufficient altitude.

Alaska is another story. Most fields are only suitable for the more utility class aircraft. I would not recommend anyone base a Q200 in Alaska.

Cheers,
Jay


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

Here are the relevant data:

Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    43 Knots
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    15.2 lbs./hp

Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration    63 Knots
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb.
Wing Loading (gross)    17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading    12 lbs./hp

A better comparison for the Q200 would be a Falco Series IV landing with no flaps (stall of 62 knots). Falco has a wing loading of 16.8 lb./sq. ft. and power loading of 11.3 lbs./hp. The Falco is not exactly a 152.

For a factory aircraft speed comparison to the Q200, think Comanche 300, landing with no flaps (and maybe with the gear up!).

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

7mph difference in final approach speeds. That was my only point Jim. I suppose I can see how my wording could be taken another way, so I'll concede on that,  but that's all I meant. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:59 AM, logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

“What’s the issue with landing speed. It’s basically the same as a 152”..........

You are correct Ryan. I completely mis read what you said. Somebody pass the popcorn.

Best regards,

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jim Patillo
 

“What’s the issue with landing speed. It’s basically the same as a 152”..........

You are correct Ryan. I completely mis read what you said. Somebody pass the popcorn.

Best regards,

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

Where are you getting 35mph? Final to the tarmac in a 152 is 55kias or 63mph. 


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Mike Dwyer q2pilot@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Science 101....  The Kinetic energy of an object goes up with the square of the velocity.  So a C150 at 35 mph is say 35 squared or 1225.  A Q2 at 70 mph is 4900 or 4 times more than a C150!

That's a huge difference.

Mike Q200 

On Dec 13, 2017 11:44 PM, "ryan goodman elboy0712@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

There is not enough of a difference to pretend youre landing the space shuttle

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017, 9:03:19 PM MST, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


 

Well, you need to point the 152 down a little more just before impact. 


On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:56 PM, wypaul2001@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.



Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

ryan goodman
 

Stop putting words in my mouth Jim. I never said shit about it handling like a 152. I said the landing speeds are not terribly far off. A direct result to the op's list of concerns. 


On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25 PM, logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Mathew,

I also agree with Paul and Sam. If you feel your plane is to fast on landing or that it will be unreliable flying over populated areas (I fly in SF and LA area) you may want to consider a different horse.

As far as Ryan’s statement about a Q landing like a 152 goes, its obvious he doesn’t fly a Q.

Regarding the BRS system on a Q, go ahead and mount one to your plane (costs more than you paid for the whole plane). Test,test,test, gather as much empirical evidence as possible and then return here and publish the results. We may show some interest then.

I can’t tell you how many times we’ve heard this stuff from people who never end up with a successful Q.

While this site is about Q’s, we set it up in 2000 to promote building and flying, not reinventing the plane. Experimentation is wonderful but not real helpful in getting pilots to finish their projects.

I fly my Q weekly as a commuter and “Baby” rarely lets me down.
Jim Patillo
N46JP

9461 - 9480 of 55426