Date   

Accident summary interim report

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi All,

 

I have put a file on the Yahoo groups site with my interim summary of the accidents for the entire Q fleet. I think it has some good information in it. I will continue to break down the stats further and report as time permits, but I believe the general conclusions in this report are useful to all right now.

 

https://xa.yimg.com/df/Q-LIST/Quickie+Type+Aircraft+Accident+Analysis.pdf?token=siLegLWH-xDtqzAEjHqx_u5B76Oygy72Duj1RzYgpqSNlike3bbMhtxTe-nXl200J7tbn1RUorKzTNpzGSGuvkPuzvPPbvUbZwh-Lyg47ZTMSlVqod-gSTwLaNaPKRUyJgDCY3xvChStXqa-XiC4hYPgErFiLg3Glt33cg7VaoCU6lImtwI&type=download

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


New file uploaded to Q-LIST

Q-LIST@...
 

Hello,

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

File : /accident analyses/Quickie Type Aircraft Accident Analysis.pdf
Uploaded by : jay_scheevel <jay@scheevel.com>
Description : February 2018 analysis

You can access this file at the URL:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Q-LIST/files/accident%20analyses/Quickie%20Type%20Aircraft%20Accident%20Analysis.pdf

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

Regards,

jay_scheevel <jay@scheevel.com>


Re: New member just got a tri q200

Brian Hutchinson
 

Hi Steve good luck with the project. You're Q2-Tri was the one in Lakeland huh? Very cool you're considering alternative power plants which is what I'm interested in. However I agree that you may be better off using a proven power plant to start with. Learn to fly the plane, get used to its character then swap to the Yamaha. Im looking into using alternative engines primarily out of necessity as I want to build a multi engine craft. Multi engine provides a performance gain and redundancy for more safety on cross country and over water flight. I wouldn't be able to fit two certified aircraft engines in a two seater easily while staying within weight and balance. I'm making payments on a Dragonfly Kit with a VW. Similar to the Q planes. Anyway I'll be eager to see how you're project goes. I'm no expert but I'm happy to consider questions you'll have. Richard at fastlittleairplanes.com is a good resource of info on composites and quickies and dflys in particular.


Re: New member just got a tri q200

Steve S
 

The guys near me running the rx1 have hundreds of hours on them and have worked out the bugs. I'm not a fan of o200 considering all the other options out there . Where I'm at I have a 5500ft runway and plenty of room beyond for any mishap and being that I'm 150lbs on a good day weight isn't a issue. Auto conversions and all that are second nature to me since the gyros my dad had ran the ej22 so tinkering isn't a big deal . Right now the yamaha is top on the list for me . Working out bugs isn't a big deal anyway since I have a flting airplane now .


Re: Aileron Rigging Template

craig martin
 

Hello

Can I also get a copy of this CAD template??

Thank you.

Craig Martin


Re: New member just got a tri q200

craig martin
 

Matthew,

Some great info here. I would like to get in contact with you and pick your brain on the o200 rebuild / performance mods. I have just decided to go the o200 route myself after Phil opened my eyes on the wisdom of a Q200 vs a Q1 with a rotax 503.

I see cores for the O200 are fairly cheap and plentiful, and I have the latest engine rebuild manual and parts lists.

Thanks.

Craig


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

Luis Lopez
 

Look for Elliot Seguin from Mojave CA.
He got a huge record flight testing a beefy Q1.
Maybe, he will be willing to help you with your new design.
Good luck and have fun!!


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

craig martin
 

Lots of good information here.

I would love to get more info on the Dolphin. A quick web search didn't turn up anything.

I really do want to fly vs build/design so I may lean more towards the Q200. I am building this in order to have a fun taildragger to fly while I work on my next homebuilding project. My schedule is such that I can put about 1000 hours into the project in the first year. I would love to be flying or very close to it by then.

Now a logistics question...Is the Q200 realistically buildable in a 2 car garage? I am most concerned about dust and smell into the house. The garage is attached to the house. I probably need to join my EAA chapter (Sugarland Texas) and see if I can rent some building space from someone. I think the hangars at KSGR are all rented out.

I pulled the plans from Quickheads (Q2) as well as the Gall alignment, LS1, and brake upgrades. Are there any other safety upgrades/mods I need to incorporate?

As for forming the foam, I am considering buying the pre-cut foam from Eureka CNC. Now I have enough left over CNC parts to build my own CNC cutter for free essentially...but I guess the question is whether its really worth the effort. I am most concerned about a truly correct rig on the AC.....I want it to fly in a balanced and harmonious manner. I am sure there are many Q2s that were cut by hand and fly well, right?

Craig
Houston, Texas.



Re: New member just got a tri q200

Steve S
 

The guys near me running the rx1 have hundreds of hours on them and have worked out the bugs. I'm not a fan of o200 considering all the other options out there . Where I'm at I have a 5500ft runway and plenty of room beyond for any mishap and being that I'm 150lbs on a good day weight isn't a issue. Auto conversions and all that are second nature to me since the gyros my dad had ran the ej22 so tinkering isn't a big deal . Right now the yamaha is top on the list for me . Working out bugs isn't a big deal anyway since I have a flting airplane now . 


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]
wrote:
 

Sounds cool. Yamaha makes great engines sportbike engines. Would you consider putting an O-200 on it first to work out all of the airframe bugs prior to having to work out engine bugs? The Q is an awesome cross country airplane but it is not a top performer in take off or landing. You will land at ~80mph and need ~2000 to get it stopped. Takeoff is maybe 1000 feet if your light and at sea level but you'll eat up some runway building up airspeed to start climbing. I say that because if you start to lose your engine on takeoff, even a 6000 foot strip at sea level would be tight to be able to land straight ahead on takeoff. Gyro planes, weight shift, slow airplanes, etc. are great for playing around with motors but something that lands with as much energy as the q does is not an ideal platform. I've done the car motor thing on my amphib (lands slow and can land safely almost anywhere) and what I found was that while the initial cost was less, the cost to get the bugs worked out was far more than the cost of an airplane motor. If you like tinkering with engines and you want to save money maybe you can look for a good deal on a disassembled o-200 with some time on it?


 I ended up replacing the suzuki motor on my amphib with an o-235 that had some time on it and was disassembled. I paid 2k for it, did the top end and re-assembly myself, designed a custom bed for the airframe and engine, designed a custom exhaust, intake, oil pan etc. and it was a fraction of what I had spent on the car motor and I spent 1/38 of the time working on it in 140 flight hours as I did in 70 flight hours on the Suzuki. I've put 50 hours on my q in the last couple of months flying across the country and all over the west coast and while I never count on the motor running to keep me alive I wouldn't trade that O-200 for ANYTHING. Also, if you are using a carbureted R1 engine you'll need to add mixture control and if your using fuel injection that you won't be able to burn 100ll. That's not a big deal on a gyro but for a cross country machine that is a game over, sure you can use additives to get rid of the lead. These things that sound like little hurdles will really eat into the mission of the Q.


If your selling yourself on the additional power and fuel consumption you could get from the R1 motor, high compression pistons, fuel injection, tuned exhaust, intake and electronic ignition on the O-200 will beat the R1 motor in power and fuel burn.  



Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of chopndrag@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:27 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] New member just got a tri q200
 
 

I just acquired a quickie q2 project Saturday. It is in boat form ready to have the wings and gear mounted. I currently own a Avid mk4 speed wing and have 20 years of experimental aircraft building from airplanes to gyrocopters. I do not plan on using a o200 on my plane and am thinking way out of the box with the yamaha rx1 120hp motor. I know several people with them on gyros and airplanes that love them. I only got a crude manual so I'll be asking tons of questions about this little hot rod.
Steve
Avid mk4
Quickie tri q200 project


Re: New member just got a tri q200

Matthew Curcio
 

Sounds cool. Yamaha makes great engines sportbike engines. Would you consider putting an O-200 on it first to work out all of the airframe bugs prior to having to work out engine bugs? The Q is an awesome cross country airplane but it is not a top performer in take off or landing. You will land at ~80mph and need ~2000 to get it stopped. Takeoff is maybe 1000 feet if your light and at sea level but you'll eat up some runway building up airspeed to start climbing. I say that because if you start to lose your engine on takeoff, even a 6000 foot strip at sea level would be tight to be able to land straight ahead on takeoff. Gyro planes, weight shift, slow airplanes, etc. are great for playing around with motors but something that lands with as much energy as the q does is not an ideal platform. I've done the car motor thing on my amphib (lands slow and can land safely almost anywhere) and what I found was that while the initial cost was less, the cost to get the bugs worked out was far more than the cost of an airplane motor. If you like tinkering with engines and you want to save money maybe you can look for a good deal on a disassembled o-200 with some time on it?


 I ended up replacing the suzuki motor on my amphib with an o-235 that had some time on it and was disassembled. I paid 2k for it, did the top end and re-assembly myself, designed a custom bed for the airframe and engine, designed a custom exhaust, intake, oil pan etc. and it was a fraction of what I had spent on the car motor and I spent 1/38 of the time working on it in 140 flight hours as I did in 70 flight hours on the Suzuki. I've put 50 hours on my q in the last couple of months flying across the country and all over the west coast and while I never count on the motor running to keep me alive I wouldn't trade that O-200 for ANYTHING. Also, if you are using a carbureted R1 engine you'll need to add mixture control and if your using fuel injection that you won't be able to burn 100ll. That's not a big deal on a gyro but for a cross country machine that is a game over, sure you can use additives to get rid of the lead. These things that sound like little hurdles will really eat into the mission of the Q.


If your selling yourself on the additional power and fuel consumption you could get from the R1 motor, high compression pistons, fuel injection, tuned exhaust, intake and electronic ignition on the O-200 will beat the R1 motor in power and fuel burn.  



Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773




From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of chopndrag@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:27 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] New member just got a tri q200
 
 

I just acquired a quickie q2 project Saturday. It is in boat form ready to have the wings and gear mounted. I currently own a Avid mk4 speed wing and have 20 years of experimental aircraft building from airplanes to gyrocopters. I do not plan on using a o200 on my plane and am thinking way out of the box with the yamaha rx1 120hp motor. I know several people with them on gyros and airplanes that love them. I only got a crude manual so I'll be asking tons of questions about this little hot rod.
Steve
Avid mk4
Quickie tri q200 project


New member just got a tri q200

Steve S
 

I just acquired a quickie q2 project Saturday. It is in boat form ready to have the wings and gear mounted. I currently own a Avid mk4 speed wing and have 20 years of experimental aircraft building from airplanes to gyrocopters. I do not plan on using a o200 on my plane and am thinking way out of the box with the yamaha rx1 120hp motor. I know several people with them on gyros and airplanes that love them. I only got a crude manual so I'll be asking tons of questions about this little hot rod.
Steve
Avid mk4
Quickie tri q200 project


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

Brian Hutchinson
 

I thought that that Carbon Q-1 wasn't completed in time for that competition. It looked like only Four entries competed and the Q wasn't one of them. Maybe I'm wrong. I wanted to see it but couldn't find much on that plane. Maybe the plane was completed but had a problem or was disqualified for one reason or another. Yeah I wanted to see what they were working with because I was considering a Bio Diesel/ Electric hybrid configuration that would be super efficient.


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

Jim Patillo
 

😊


Pitot/AOA installed

Jay Scheevel
 

Installed my pitot/AOA probe over the weekend. Making slow progress.

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

Jay Scheevel
 

The carbon fiber Q-1 used in the CAFÉ electric flight competition was built by Gene Sheehan, who was cofounder and co-owner of Quickie Aircraft Corporation back in the day….before they got sued and closed up shop. He probably had some good talented help to get that carbon-Q1 built. Not sure what happened to the plane after the competition, but I suspect it still exists if someone wanted to buy it from him for a pretty penny….My understanding is that he is still a bit cantankerous.

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building

 

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:35 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

 

 

I see J. Brought up the Dolphin here in DFW and didn't realize Dan Owens was with Chapter 34 in Arlington, I'm a member of nearby 280 in Burleson, I may need to stop by Arlington municipal more often!

Has anyone been successful in joining the Q Performance group in the recent past? I tried to join but my request eventually timed out.

Also if you Google around there was an all carbon Q1 used in a CAFE competition from out in California. I don't have the link handy but I believe one of the QAC members is now with a custom motorcycle shop and it was their project. It's probably unnecessary and prohibitively expensive, but fun to look at.


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

C R
 

I see J. Brought up the Dolphin here in DFW and didn't realize Dan Owens was with Chapter 34 in Arlington, I'm a member of nearby 280 in Burleson, I may need to stop by Arlington municipal more often!

Has anyone been successful in joining the Q Performance group in the recent past? I tried to join but my request eventually timed out.

Also if you Google around there was an all carbon Q1 used in a CAFE competition from out in California. I don't have the link handy but I believe one of the QAC members is now with a custom motorcycle shop and it was their project. It's probably unnecessary and prohibitively expensive, but fun to look at.


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

Phil Lankford
 

Hello Craig:

I would be happy to swap phone numbers and email addresses with you. If you are near the West Coast then I have a pretty good collection of resources here in the Southern California area and I have a friend up in Oregon who has a TriQ project (was built and flown by Dennis Rose) that includes an 0-200 engine. He may be willing to part the engine and sell separately.  A plans built Q-200 (or Tri-Q if you prefer) with a Continental 0-200 will put a smile on your face. 

Phil

On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, craig martin cmartin0721@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Phil,


I sis consider this. The main reason i chose the q1 was the low price of the engine and the rapidity of the build. I suppose the q200 might not take much longer to build, but the engine (o200) would be significantly more expensive than a used 503. Please correct me on this if i am wrong as i would consider this. Thank you for the input

Craig


On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Hello Craig:  You are undoubtably a very talented individual and it appears to me that you are developing an entirely new aircraft design, albeit modeled after a Q1. This effort in itself is very monumental. If this is your real goal then please have at it. The Q community may learn much from your example. If, however, you wish to fly, then consider what a nice Q1 you could make that meets nearly all of your needs.. Start with the Q-200. Fly solo! Now you have a right seat to place your bug out bag and potato chips.  The Continental 0-200 is a marvelous march for the airframe. You still end up with a very tiny, however, much more capable aircraft. Just my humble opinion. 


Respectfully,

Phil Lankford




On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:05 PM, cmartin0721@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Hello everyone!


Thank you all for the great responses. I believe you have answered the main questions I have.

I had actually considered scaling up the aircraft a bit. I was thinking 10-15%. I am going to put the design into SolidWorks and do some stress analysis on the enlarged design. Also, I had originally settled on the 503, but I like the idea of the 912 even better. I will look at the CG and WB issues with the enlarged design with the 912 and extra fuel.

I will absolutely incorporate the upgraded brakes and I am pretty set on the LS1 canard. I will do some analysis on the spar, and hopefully just use the existing design. I am attempting to keep the re-designs to a minimum, as I would like to get the aircraft built in a reasonable amount of time.

I have access to an industrial autoclave and some additional composite bagging materials, so I ho pe I can get the spar handled, we will see.

As for pilot size, I am 6' so no problem there, but I will need to lose some weight. perhaps the upsize will give me some assistance there. But I have already begun the weight reduction, so I will get there either way.

Thanks for all the input. I will keep the group informed of progress as far as the resize / analysis goes. If anyone has already done this, please let me know, as I don't want to "re-invent the wheel" here.

Thank you all....I  am really looking forward to this.

Craig Martin


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

JMasal@...
 

Ahhhhh that rudder crap again. Well, I've said and written it a million times before but my best advice
is: BEWARE OF THE SINGLE DATA POINT information.
You are VERY late to the game but a pair of slightly enlarged Q-1 were built near Dallas and called
Dolphins. Both flew but builders long disappeared. A photo is in an early Quicktalk.
A guy in LaCrosse, WI got a carbon fuselage done but didnt go further. A NASA rocket guy in Alabama
put a 912 in his and gave us a kick-ass low level demo for us during one of out fly ins (I dont remember
his rudder) Lotsa water over the bridge.

j.




-----Original Message-----
From: cmartin0721@... [Q-LIST]
To: Q-LIST
Sent: Sun, Feb 11, 2018 6:49 pm
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

 
Hello everyone!

Thank you all for the great responses. I believe you have answered the main questions I have.

I had actually considered scaling up the aircraft a bit. I was thinking 10-15%. I am going to put the design into SolidWorks and do some stress analysis on the enlarged design. Also, I had originally settled on the 503, but I like the idea of the 912 even better. I will look at the CG and WB issues with the enlarged design with the 912 and extra fuel.

I will absolutely incorporate the upgraded brakes and I am pretty set on the LS1 canard. I will do some analysis on the spar, and hopefully just use the existing design. I am attempting to keep the re-designs to a minimum, as I would like to get the aircraft built in a reasonable amount of time.

I have access to an industrial autoclave and some additional composite bagging materials, so I hope I can get the spar handled, we will see.

As for pilot size, I am 6' so no problem there, but I will need to lose some weight. perhaps the upsize will give me some assistance there. But I have already begun the weight reduction, so I will get there either way.

Thanks for all the input. I will keep the group informed of progress as far as the resize / analysis goes. If anyone has already done this, please let me know, as I don't want to "re-invent the wheel" here.

Thank you all....I  am really looking forward to this.

Craig Martin


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

craig martin
 

Phil,

I sis consider this. The main reason i chose the q1 was the low price of the engine and the rapidity of the build. I suppose the q200 might not take much longer to build, but the engine (o200) would be significantly more expensive than a used 503. Please correct me on this if i am wrong as i would consider this. Thank you for the input

Craig


On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Hello Craig:  You are undoubtably a very talented individual and it appears to me that you are developing an entirely new aircraft design, albeit modeled after a Q1. This effort in itself is very monumental. If this is your real goal then please have at it. The Q community may learn much from your example. If, however, you wish to fly, then consider what a nice Q1 you could make that meets nearly all of your needs.. Start with the Q-200. Fly solo! Now you have a right seat to place your bug out bag and potato chips.  The Continental 0-200 is a marvelous march for the airframe. You still end up with a very tiny, however, much more capable aircraft. Just my humble opinion. 


Respectfully,

Phil Lankford




On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:05 PM, cmartin0721@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Hello everyone!


Thank you all for the great responses. I believe you have answered the main questions I have.

I had actually considered scaling up the aircraft a bit. I was thinking 10-15%. I am going to put the design into SolidWorks and do some stress analysis on the enlarged design. Also, I had originally settled on the 503, but I like the idea of the 912 even better. I will look at the CG and WB issues with the enlarged design with the 912 and extra fuel.

I will absolutely incorporate the upgraded brakes and I am pretty set on the LS1 canard. I will do some analysis on the spar, and hopefully just use the existing design. I am attempting to keep the re-designs to a minimum, as I would like to get the aircraft built in a reasonable amount of time.

I have access to an industrial autoclave and some additional composite bagging materials, so I hope I can get the spar handled, we will see.

As for pilot size, I am 6' so no problem there, but I will need to lose some weight. perhaps the upsize will give me some assistance there. But I have already begun the weight reduction, so I will get there either way.

Thanks for all the input. I will keep the group informed of progress as far as the resize / analysis goes. If anyone has already done this, please let me know, as I don't want to "re-invent the wheel" here.

Thank you all....I  am really looking forward to this.

Craig Martin


Re: New Member New Q1 Build first questions

Phil Lankford
 

Hello Craig:  You are undoubtably a very talented individual and it appears to me that you are developing an entirely new aircraft design, albeit modeled after a Q1. This effort in itself is very monumental. If this is your real goal then please have at it. The Q community may learn much from your example. If, however, you wish to fly, then consider what a nice Q1 you could make that meets nearly all of your needs. Start with the Q-200. Fly solo! Now you have a right seat to place your bug out bag and potato chips.  The Continental 0-200 is a marvelous march for the airframe. You still end up with a very tiny, however, much more capable aircraft. Just my humble opinion. 

Respectfully,

Phil Lankford




On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:05 PM, cmartin0721@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Hello everyone!


Thank you all for the great responses. I believe you have answered the main questions I have.

I had actually considered scaling up the aircraft a bit. I was thinking 10-15%. I am going to put the design into SolidWorks and do some stress analysis on the enlarged design. Also, I had originally settled on the 503, but I like the idea of the 912 even better. I will look at the CG and WB issues with the enlarged design with the 912 and extra fuel.

I will absolutely incorporate the upgraded brakes and I am pretty set on the LS1 canard. I will do some analysis on the spar, and hopefully just use the existing design. I am attempting to keep the re-designs to a minimum, as I would like to get the aircraft built in a reasonable amount of time.

I have access to an industrial autoclave and some additional composite bagging materials, so I hope I can get the spar handled, we will see.

As for pilot size, I am 6' so no problem there, but I will need to lose some weight. perhaps the upsize will give me some assistance there. But I have already begun the weight reduction, so I will get there either way.

Thanks for all the input. I will keep the group informed of progress as far as the resize / analysis goes. If anyone has already done this, please let me know, as I don't want to "re-invent the wheel" here.

Thank you all....I  am really looking forward to this.

Craig Martin

6981 - 7000 of 53179