Date   

Pre-buy Checklist

Shaun Milke
 

Hi and thanks for the add into the group!

I'm seriously considering buying a Q200 and am having a buddy take a look at the airplane for me this weekend.  I'm pretty familiar with general items to look for during a prebuy, but I was hoping I could get tips for some Q200-specific items to check for.  Common wear items, likely damage locations, service problems, approximate wear limits, etc. and general tips would be extremely helpful.

Thanks!
Shaun


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

According to my modeling, once you reach Vmin the only way to arrest the sink rate is with power, so I can see what you are saying Jerry.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Larry Severson
 

Not a chance. But, flying the q200 model in X-Plane a lot would help.

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 6:07 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc: Jerry Marstall
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2

 

 

Another perspective. Would anybody send a non pilot on a solo in a q 200 with only 10 hours of instruction? 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: "Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 12/14/17 5:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2

 

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.
P


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

With AOA I can fly final at 80MPH. However final is with power.



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 12/15/17 11:36 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2

 

My approach and landing inumbers are the same as Paul’s.

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200
1450 hours on my Q


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jim Patillo
 

My approach and landing inumbers are the same as Paul’s.

Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200
1450 hours on my Q


Re: B(R)S

JMasal@...
 

Yet another perspective. ("if you can't say something nice, don'say anything at all") we would all live in a VERY silent world if
this were true.
In the military and aircraft manufacturing world you can crunch all the numbers you want but there are always such things as
TEST PILOTS with high, verifiable skills who risk life and limb to confirm or deny engineering numbers. We have never had that
just guys who fly non-precision built aircraft with variable flight skills.



-------- Original message --------
From: "Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST]" LIST@...>
Date: 12/14/17 5:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
 
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.

,_.___

Posted by: Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (33)

Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.

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


.


Re: BRS Chute in a Q2

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Another perspective. Would anybody send a non pilot on a solo in a q 200 with only 10 hours of instruction? 



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...>
Date: 12/14/17 5:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2

 

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.
P


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

9501 - 9520 of 55473