Date   

Re: Build times

Jay Scheevel
 

OK, I will play.

First parts of Q200 kit received October 1984, the rest by December 1984. Tri-Q conversion kit in March 1985. Built from the start as a Tri-Q.

Finished building and certified May 2018.

33 years 7 months building.

First flight November 25, 2018.

3800+ documented building hours.

Several thousand more modeling, design, and analysis hours.

Happy with the results.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, N8WQ 118 hours

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

This could be fun. Let’s take a quick survey! How long did your Quickie take to build from delivery of QAC materials. Which model do you have? How many years and man hours did it take?

Mine was started in January1981 and finished in 2000. It’s a Q200, took 19 + years and 4000 hours to first flight. First flown August 2000. 

Jim
N46JP - Q200

 


Re: Build times

Bruce Crain
 

Yeah what Paul said!
Bruce


On Oct 18, 2020, at 4:24 PM, Paul Fisher <rv7a.n18pf@...> wrote:


My Q-200 took seven years, three months, 22 days to build.  First flight was August 13th 1990.  I have no idea how many hours to build...  I didn't want to know.

Paul Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 16:06 Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

This could be fun. Let’s take a quick survey! How long did your Quickie take to build from delivery of QAC materials. Which model do you have? How many years and man hours did it take?

Mine was started in January1981 and finished in 2000. It’s a Q200, took 19 + years and 4000 hours to first flight. First flown August 2000. 

Jim
N46JP - Q200

 




Re: Build times

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

16yrs, 5000hrs. First flew June 1997.  914 hrs.  Tri-Q200.  Once a Tri-Q.  Probably another 1000hrs work since 1997 ( engine swap, repaint, new interior, new glass panel.)

-------- Original message --------
From: Paul Fisher <rv7a.n18pf@...>
Date: 10/18/20 5:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Build times

My Q-200 took seven years, three months, 22 days to build.  First flight was August 13th 1990.  I have no idea how many hours to build...  I didn't want to know.

Paul Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 16:06 Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

This could be fun. Let’s take a quick survey! How long did your Quickie take to build from delivery of QAC materials. Which model do you have? How many years and man hours did it take?

Mine was started in January1981 and finished in 2000. It’s a Q200, took 19 + years and 4000 hours to first flight. First flown August 2000. 

Jim
N46JP - Q200

 


Re: Build times

Paul Fisher
 

My Q-200 took seven years, three months, 22 days to build.  First flight was August 13th 1990.  I have no idea how many hours to build...  I didn't want to know.

Paul Fisher
Q-200 N17PF

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 16:06 Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

This could be fun. Let’s take a quick survey! How long did your Quickie take to build from delivery of QAC materials. Which model do you have? How many years and man hours did it take?

Mine was started in January1981 and finished in 2000. It’s a Q200, took 19 + years and 4000 hours to first flight. First flown August 2000. 

Jim
N46JP - Q200

 


Build times

Jim Patillo
 

This could be fun. Let’s take a quick survey! How long did your Quickie take to build from delivery of QAC materials. Which model do you have? How many years and man hours did it take?

Mine was started in January1981 and finished in 2000. It’s a Q200, took 19 + years and 4000 hours to first flight. First flown August 2000. 

Jim
N46JP - Q200

 


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Jay Scheevel
 

No that would be a 34 year build... speaking from experience ��

Cheers,
Jay

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Martin Skiby <mskiby@...> wrote:

Well said Bruce.  I’m all for innovation, but that can lead to a 20 year build.  I have seen it happen.

Martin

 


On Oct 18, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:

Or you could follow the plans and get it done more quickly without deviations and distractions.
Bruce


On Oct 18, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Stuart Grant <smgrant@...> wrote:

If  you are thinking of using vacuum-bagging, consider the Cozy-Girrrls "Lo-Vac" technique - Low Cost, Low Vacuum - that they have used for many, many years to make high quality parts for experimental aircraft.

See their webpage on it here ---  http://www.cozygirrrl.com/lovac.htm and a long video of a presentation that Randi made at Sun-N-Fun in 2019 here --- https://youtu.be/fmuDOWTr_3c

No wrinkles, no bubbles, no excess resin. Uses an aquarium pump and cling wrap to generate a vacuum of only about -11 inches of mercury. Worth checking out as an assist to hand layup especially for parts that are not really big.



Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Martin Skiby
 

Well said Bruce.  I’m all for innovation, but that can lead to a 20 year build.  I have seen it happen.

Martin

 


On Oct 18, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:

Or you could follow the plans and get it done more quickly without deviations and distractions.
Bruce


On Oct 18, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Stuart Grant <smgrant@...> wrote:

If  you are thinking of using vacuum-bagging, consider the Cozy-Girrrls "Lo-Vac" technique - Low Cost, Low Vacuum - that they have used for many, many years to make high quality parts for experimental aircraft.

See their webpage on it here ---  http://www.cozygirrrl.com/lovac.htm and a long video of a presentation that Randi made at Sun-N-Fun in 2019 here --- https://youtu.be/fmuDOWTr_3c

No wrinkles, no bubbles, no excess resin. Uses an aquarium pump and cling wrap to generate a vacuum of only about -11 inches of mercury. Worth checking out as an assist to hand layup especially for parts that are not really big.



Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Bruce Crain
 

Or you could follow the plans and get it done more quickly without deviations and distractions.
Bruce


On Oct 18, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Stuart Grant <smgrant@...> wrote:

If  you are thinking of using vacuum-bagging, consider the Cozy-Girrrls "Lo-Vac" technique - Low Cost, Low Vacuum - that they have used for many, many years to make high quality parts for experimental aircraft.

See their webpage on it here ---  http://www.cozygirrrl.com/lovac.htm and a long video of a presentation that Randi made at Sun-N-Fun in 2019 here --- https://youtu.be/fmuDOWTr_3c

No wrinkles, no bubbles, no excess resin. Uses an aquarium pump and cling wrap to generate a vacuum of only about -11 inches of mercury. Worth checking out as an assist to hand layup especially for parts that are not really big.



Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Jim Patillo
 

Good morning Cody,

Thank you for sharing your work experience. I forgot to ask how many hours you have in various aircraft and what types? What will be the mission of this A/C, because it is mission specific. 

I too have been in the Quickie World since 1981. If you are planning on building from scratch, do you have the fuselage shells, canopy, carbon spar and  hard parts? Did you buy a kit from someone?

If this is your first build, plan on a build time of 1000 to 4,000 + hours as there will be a steep learning curve. Do you really have that much spare time? If so, you won’t regret it. If not, you will get real tired of it. Some guys are builders, some just want to fly a fast inexpensive plane, some want to do both.  Which are you? Most never finish their projects due to a myriad of reasons.  Probably 90% of the people who bought Q kits (1,500 kits or so) never finished them. 

Sam is correct, start with a good set of plans, get organized  and read, read, and reread everything you can about this plane. We have learned a lot over the last 40 years and will happily share it with you as you proceed.

Regarding vacuum bagging, I use to fly for UAL and 
during the 70’s and when I got laid off (twice) I was offered a job at the SF Maintenance Facility rebuilding 727 - 747 Radomes after lightning strikes. I learned how to bag large and small parts, use large autoclaves and a lot about glass. 

So I bagged the small parts, elevators, ailerons and rudder but did hand layups on the Vertical Stabilizer 
Canard and Main Wing. 

I’m sure there are much better ways to do this now but the design has been recreated successfully man, many times. Why reinvent the wheel and spend an inordinate amount of time wondering if you got it right. Like I said, it’s your butt on the line. This whole thing comes down to; do you want to build or do you want to fly. 

Best regards, we are here for you. 

Jim
N46JP - Q200


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Stuart Grant
 

If  you are thinking of using vacuum-bagging, consider the Cozy-Girrrls "Lo-Vac" technique - Low Cost, Low Vacuum - that they have used for many, many years to make high quality parts for experimental aircraft.

See their webpage on it here ---  http://www.cozygirrrl.com/lovac.htm and a long video of a presentation that Randi made at Sun-N-Fun in 2019 here --- https://youtu.be/fmuDOWTr_3c

No wrinkles, no bubbles, no excess resin. Uses an aquarium pump and cling wrap to generate a vacuum of only about -11 inches of mercury. Worth checking out as an assist to hand layup especially for parts that are not really big.


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Sam Hoskins
 

Cody,

I'm not an expert. I never heard of Biaxial-Triaxial cloth until this discussion. I did a little (very little) Googleing just to see what it is. You have a lot of good background and should make short work of building a Q aircraft.

Here's my cro-magnon take on it.  Since this is your first aircraft, worry more about how to set up your shop, and how to get the time in each day that you need to complete your project.  I do have a real bone to pick about the plans, particularly while building the LS-1 canard, but following the plans is a good place to start.  Having been in this Quickie world for almost 40 years now, we have seen all sorts of guys get excited about building a plane and all the improvements they are going to make, only to have them drop out, so concentrate on the basics.

If you want to build this, especially as a first-time builder,  I strongly recommend using the glass as called out in the plans. It works, pretty much. Which configuration are you building?  Taildragger? Tri-Q? If you have a set of CF spars I did an extensive re-write of the canard plans the last time I built one. The problem with the QAC Q-200 addendum was they kept referring back to the Q-2 plans. Maybe I overdid it, but you can see the result here: http://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2399&Itemid=790

I also wrote up how to perform the Gall wheel alignment during the installation of the wheel pants. Not addressing wheel alignment was a huge screw-up by the QAC. This also shows how to fabricate the Couglin brake mounts. http://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2400&Itemid=791

Good luck with everything. We're looking forward to your progress reports. Where are you located? 

Sam


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

 

I'm an avionics manager for a shop repairing falcon jets. 10's 20's 50's 900's 2000's. I've built replacement cowls for Cessnas down in Jenks, OK. I work with a lot of mechanics who did composite work at Bizjet. This would be my first homebuild. Hence all the questions and inexperience. I have good solid plans for saving weight in avionics and that stuff. But the structure part of it, especially layups I have so many guys up here saying there are better techniques than those from 1985. But those from 1985 have built reliable proven airframes, so I'm not against them by any means.


On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 23:53 Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
Hi Cody, I would be happy to talk with you.
I’m no expert like Charlie, Vern, Sam and others on this list but I do have a lot of glass time and have made a major critical repair to the carbon spar, due to improper load tests done by Scott Swing at Quickie Aircraft in Mojave. The repair was made at 200 hours and the info is available in the files section of this group if you are interested. My plane does have a lot of time on it and to date have never had a repairable accident in it. The plane is true and straight.

First please give us some background on you and your previous experience so we know how to approach this. Do you have experience building Fiberglas Airplanes, EZE, Glasair, Velocity, etc.

Jim
N46JP - Q200

Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:18:23 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
Jim,
I was told specifically to talk to you and Sam Hoskins before even attempting to build per the plans. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just looking at logistics and asking questions before I go down the wrong rabbit hole. I was thinking triaxial glass using the same type of glass as 7715 woven together would hold the fibers in place better. I'm not trying to change the structure itself. Just asking about efficiency, and effective practices. Id love to talk to both you and Sam at length before I do anything! 


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

Jim Patillo
 

Hi Cody, I would be happy to talk with you.
I’m no expert like Charlie, Vern, Sam and others on this list but I do have a lot of glass time and have made a major critical repair to the carbon spar, due to improper load tests done by Scott Swing at Quickie Aircraft in Mojave. The repair was made at 200 hours and the info is available in the files section of this group if you are interested. My plane does have a lot of time on it and to date have never had a repairable accident in it. The plane is true and straight.

First please give us some background on you and your previous experience so we know how to approach this. Do you have experience building Fiberglas Airplanes, EZE, Glasair, Velocity, etc.

Jim
N46JP - Q200

Sent from Outer Space


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:18:23 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
Jim,
I was told specifically to talk to you and Sam Hoskins before even attempting to build per the plans. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just looking at logistics and asking questions before I go down the wrong rabbit hole. I was thinking triaxial glass using the same type of glass as 7715 woven together would hold the fibers in place better. I'm not trying to change the structure itself. Just asking about efficiency, and effective practices. Id love to talk to both you and Sam at length before I do anything! 


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

 

Jim,
I was told specifically to talk to you and Sam Hoskins before even attempting to build per the plans. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, just looking at logistics and asking questions before I go down the wrong rabbit hole. I was thinking triaxial glass using the same type of glass as 7715 woven together would hold the fibers in place better. I'm not trying to change the structure itself. Just asking about efficiency, and effective practices. Id love to talk to both you and Sam at length before I do anything! 


Re: Q2 for SALE

smeshno1@...
 

 A FrankenBird? Near and dear to my own hangar queen. I do wonder what the numbers in flight performance are. Zenith is a nice machine. I was at the Arlington EAA Zenith booth for several years. Great folks for support too. 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Kaczmarek 3RD <fastlittleairplanes@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 3:34 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 for SALE
 
That is the DragonQ that the Gerbers use to own. It is a rather different and unique version of the Q.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 4:17 PM Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:
Nice!
Bruce Crain


On Oct 17, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Pat Weaver <pweaver311@...> wrote:


Hi, I thought it might be a good idea to list my Q2 before putting it up on Barnstormers; I figure this group is already very familiar with aircraft and might save me time answering a lot of questions. So, here it is, I am asking $14,000 for the Q2. It has a 65HP Revmaster 2100-D, 165 Hours TTAF&E. Fresh condition inspection in July. At 142 Hours the heads and jugs were replaced and cool tins were added. So far there have been no overheating issues at all that the prior owner had. It also has dual rudder pedals with differential brakes(matco), added at 142 Hours. New tires and spring steel gear also added. It has a radio and transponder, no ADSB. This Q2 has the dragonfly gear, LS1 canard, Reflexer and sparrow strainer.  It is located in Elkhart, Indiana at Elkhart Municipal airport. (KEKM) There is also a variable pitch Ultra Prop that is available to go with it if the price is right. 
We, my father and I, are selling it because we got an offer that we can't pass up from a hangar neighbor. She is selling her Zenith CH650 and it suits our needs much better. As many of you know the Quickie is not a big plane and it is hard for larger people to fit in it. Unfortunately everyone I planned on enjoying it are just too big. The Zenith will fit everyone comfortably and since it is a light sport my father can fly it with a lot less training and certification that is required for the Quickie; overall a plane much more suited for our needs. I hate to let it go, it is a sweet airplane; just not very practical in our situation. If anyone is interested, please send an email INDIVIDUALLY or call myself or my father, Dave. He is more likely to answer right away but I will call back as soon as I can if I don't answer. 

Dave - 574-238-1968

Patrick- 574-327-1150

More pictures are available, this is all I could fit in the email.  Thanks for checking it out!

Kind Regards,
Patrick W.

<20200308_162517.jpg>
<20200210_201150.jpg>
<20200210_201137.jpg>
<20200829_222309.jpg>



Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

smeshno1@...
 

Cleo mentioned "buckypaper" and the realities of nanotubes effective control of lightening strike in carbon fiber structures. I am still baffled why no progress..nothing. 

 In my R&D days one of the main issues we had was the fact that Starship "got fat" due in part because of the imbedded aluminum mesh to permit the strike path to distribute rather than concentrate heat in the honeycomb cells (vaporizing the resin of course).

  I made at least 80 test samples of different materials. Of course.. galvanic corrosion and delams are a battle constant with aluminum and carbon fiber, copper is heavy..on and on. The dog chasing it's tail.  

 Even the bond line control fasteners caused grief. Beech ended up using monel blind fasteners. Lots of weight and no structural value after bond cure.  Folks here might be amused that the first flying test Starship was actually hand layup on wooden OAK tools. The centerline Keel was the bond!!! We called the oak tools "the beached whales". The join on that one was a real PIA to say the least. There was no such thing as filiment or ribbon then. No mandrels. The Wright Brothers had more tooling available than we did.    

 I got frustrated at times when it was partly my job to investigate as much and offer possible solutions, only to be shot down in flames. 
Pretty much burnt out on trying much more than was required to stay on the teams thru the years. Pioneers in Aerospace factory life as I learned are the first to get the arrows. 
 
 Chicken rivets... as the monels were called then, could have been the same as GM used on the Corvette carbon fiber. Poly... strong plastic. They also were "pop rivets" and are dirt cheap. I was not allowed to even test them to control the bond line with scrim between Primary IML and support such as floor beams. Just that alone would have saved at least 30 lbs on the build. Nope..not allowed. End of story. 

  Folks here also should be aware what we learned then too... Glass is not immune to big problems from a main branch strike while airborne, and carbon fiber within is like a giant spark plug wire. All of us flying these units really must give any and all electrical storms a wider path than the usual 20 miles. I live in the Midwest so that would sometimes mean parking early. 40 miles from a sparky cloud is too close for my comfort. 

  Being part of the R&D lightening strike team I was told our passed test was done at 10 million volts and 200 amps or some numbers as such and stupid me (remember.. I'm the Village Idiot again) asked  "thats great a sample finally passed..and so...how much does a typical lightening strike in a Summer storm here in Wichita have?"  Tyrd in the punch bowl time.  I was told "Well..no one has actually been able to measure that, but it's the best lab we could find to simulate lightening strikes!".

 When confronted with stupidity vs reality I tended to blurt out the first thing I thought which at the time was "So our customers get hit at flight level 30 or so by a main branch strike at 60 million volts or so and 1000 amps in our fancy new multi million canard machine, and next thing they know they are getting passed by two operating turboprop engines while still strapped in the seat with nothing around them and they are falling to earth!!?   Not good advertising on the six o'clock news."  

 Changing materials carries a set of risks. At least make test samples and see if the performance is up to spec. I have some original orange foam from RAF previously cut to ruff you can use for testing since I will not be needing it. Your welcome to it for the cost of shipping from 74044 zip.   

Vern           

  


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 6:35 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
Vern,

The article says it all small quantity high price. Not made in commercial quantities.

Charlie


On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:24 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 
 Charlie or Jim..perhaps others also from the Engineering side of Composites.  My last gig was working with another M.E. 
(Degreed) who was working deep on utilizing the following material at the time. I assisted him with metals at Triumph on the G280 program since he was always from a Composites background. Both of us were at Beech at different times also. Only project we had in common was the Premier 1. I was R&D M.E. and he was Production Director. 

Mitsubishi Electric Automation has appointed new executive personnel to grow and increase its presence in the Americas. In a series of hires and promotions, Mitsubishi Electric Automation Inc. (MEAU) has named key personnel to new executive positions detailed below.
www.sme.org
 Cleo also never heard what exactly stopped this material from arriving on the scene other than the cost.  As all here know.. Composite raw materials have always been high dollar!  But this stuff could have several factors to it's advantage. Weight is one but Lightening Strike is the other. We had some time to chat about various manufacturing methods and my history in Composites Structures was similar but different enough to be a good collective. 

 Maybe next year at FOD in Enid we can chat..I am always willing to learn more. Charlie we have walked a lot of the same roads as well. 

 When I was Contracting in M.E. folks would ask me what I was hired in for and I'd tell them (proudly) I was brought in to be the Village Idiot. I like to keep KISS in mind too. Maybe that is why I've survived 5+ decades in aviation.  

 Jim is correct pointing out the safest weight savings is not to be found in the Structure. Might be better (true for sure in my case) the Pilot doing some "push aways" at the resturant and maybe fewer doo dads in the instrument panel! 

 In the factories during certificated builds we had multi millions at our disposal to chase down ounces. The missions we were tasked and paid to accomplish were totally different than building and flying a Q-bird or Dragonfly. But you are Q.A. and have to consider the cost of what your possible gain, or loss, might be. Plan carefully your actual cost (and value). We had another way to say it.. don't start vast projects with half-vassed ideas.    

 My 2 cents worth on resin methods, that perhaps are viable in a homebuilt setting might be Vacuum infusion. My thoughts on this are because it was the method we built the A380 spars and other items at Spirit in Wichita. Think about having Autoclaves built for those monsters!! (NOT).

 Caul sheet, peel ply, bag and seal.. support the cores (this means making Tooling..so moar Dollars!) during cureout to resin green state.

 I met the crew, including Burt, out at RAF (later; Scaled Composites) when Voyager parts were being made. My work station in Plant 4 was not more than 30 feet from NC1, NC2, and NC3 (Department 45, R&D, Starships).  Raytheon lost BILLIONS on that program..and eventually the demise of Beech came about in part because they refused to listen to people like Burt or John Roncz; who for sure are NOT Village Idiots (like me). RAF are the same folks that wrote your Quickie plans.   

 I still have to build a Vertical, Rudder, and Ailerons for my hangar queen. I will use Infusion as the method but not because it is particularly superior to the plans methods. More like dating that same cute girl from High School again.     

 Jim has it right. Deviate at this level and you should name it OTHER than a Quickie. 

 Lehman Frankenbird will be my chosen  :-)  

 Vern in Mannford, Okleehoma  



From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 

Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

One Sky Dog
 

Vern,

The article says it all small quantity high price. Not made in commercial quantities.

On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:24 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 
 Charlie or Jim..perhaps others also from the Engineering side of Composites.  My last gig was working with another M.E. 
(Degreed) who was working deep on utilizing the following material at the time. I assisted him with metals at Triumph on the G280 program since he was always from a Composites background. Both of us were at Beech at different times also. Only project we had in common was the Premier 1. I was R&D M.E. and he was Production Director. 

Mitsubishi Electric Automation has appointed new executive personnel to grow and increase its presence in the Americas. In a series of hires and promotions, Mitsubishi Electric Automation Inc. (MEAU) has named key personnel to new executive positions detailed below.
www.sme.org
 Cleo also never heard what exactly stopped this material from arriving on the scene other than the cost.  As all here know.. Composite raw materials have always been high dollar!  But this stuff could have several factors to it's advantage. Weight is one but Lightening Strike is the other. We had some time to chat about various manufacturing methods and my history in Composites Structures was similar but different enough to be a good collective. 

 Maybe next year at FOD in Enid we can chat..I am always willing to learn more. Charlie we have walked a lot of the same roads as well. 

 When I was Contracting in M.E. folks would ask me what I was hired in for and I'd tell them (proudly) I was brought in to be the Village Idiot. I like to keep KISS in mind too. Maybe that is why I've survived 5+ decades in aviation.  

 Jim is correct pointing out the safest weight savings is not to be found in the Structure. Might be better (true for sure in my case) the Pilot doing some "push aways" at the resturant and maybe fewer doo dads in the instrument panel! 

 In the factories during certificated builds we had multi millions at our disposal to chase down ounces. The missions we were tasked and paid to accomplish were totally different than building and flying a Q-bird or Dragonfly. But you are Q.A. and have to consider the cost of what your possible gain, or loss, might be. Plan carefully your actual cost (and value). We had another way to say it.. don't start vast projects with half-vassed ideas.    

 My 2 cents worth on resin methods, that perhaps are viable in a homebuilt setting might be Vacuum infusion. My thoughts on this are because it was the method we built the A380 spars and other items at Spirit in Wichita. Think about having Autoclaves built for those monsters!! (NOT).

 Caul sheet, peel ply, bag and seal.. support the cores (this means making Tooling..so moar Dollars!) during cureout to resin green state.

 I met the crew, including Burt, out at RAF (later; Scaled Composites) when Voyager parts were being made. My work station in Plant 4 was not more than 30 feet from NC1, NC2, and NC3 (Department 45, R&D, Starships).  Raytheon lost BILLIONS on that program..and eventually the demise of Beech came about in part because they refused to listen to people like Burt or John Roncz; who for sure are NOT Village Idiots (like me). RAF are the same folks that wrote your Quickie plans.   

 I still have to build a Vertical, Rudder, and Ailerons for my hangar queen. I will use Infusion as the method but not because it is particularly superior to the plans methods. More like dating that same cute girl from High School again.     

 Jim has it right. Deviate at this level and you should name it OTHER than a Quickie. 

 Lehman Frankenbird will be my chosen  :-)  

 Vern in Mannford, Okleehoma  



From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 

Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Re: Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy

smeshno1@...
 

 
 Charlie or Jim..perhaps others also from the Engineering side of Composites.  My last gig was working with another M.E. 
(Degreed) who was working deep on utilizing the following material at the time. I assisted him with metals at Triumph on the G280 program since he was always from a Composites background. Both of us were at Beech at different times also. Only project we had in common was the Premier 1. I was R&D M.E. and he was Production Director. 

Mitsubishi Electric Automation has appointed new executive personnel to grow and increase its presence in the Americas. In a series of hires and promotions, Mitsubishi Electric Automation Inc. (MEAU) has named key personnel to new executive positions detailed below.
www.sme.org
 Cleo also never heard what exactly stopped this material from arriving on the scene other than the cost.  As all here know.. Composite raw materials have always been high dollar!  But this stuff could have several factors to it's advantage. Weight is one but Lightening Strike is the other. We had some time to chat about various manufacturing methods and my history in Composites Structures was similar but different enough to be a good collective. 

 Maybe next year at FOD in Enid we can chat..I am always willing to learn more. Charlie we have walked a lot of the same roads as well. 

 When I was Contracting in M.E. folks would ask me what I was hired in for and I'd tell them (proudly) I was brought in to be the Village Idiot. I like to keep KISS in mind too. Maybe that is why I've survived 5+ decades in aviation.  

 Jim is correct pointing out the safest weight savings is not to be found in the Structure. Might be better (true for sure in my case) the Pilot doing some "push aways" at the resturant and maybe fewer doo dads in the instrument panel! 

 In the factories during certificated builds we had multi millions at our disposal to chase down ounces. The missions we were tasked and paid to accomplish were totally different than building and flying a Q-bird or Dragonfly. But you are Q.A. and have to consider the cost of what your possible gain, or loss, might be. Plan carefully your actual cost (and value). We had another way to say it.. don't start vast projects with half-vassed ideas.    

 My 2 cents worth on resin methods, that perhaps are viable in a homebuilt setting might be Vacuum infusion. My thoughts on this are because it was the method we built the A380 spars and other items at Spirit in Wichita. Think about having Autoclaves built for those monsters!! (NOT).

 Caul sheet, peel ply, bag and seal.. support the cores (this means making Tooling..so moar Dollars!) during cureout to resin green state.

 I met the crew, including Burt, out at RAF (later; Scaled Composites) when Voyager parts were being made. My work station in Plant 4 was not more than 30 feet from NC1, NC2, and NC3 (Department 45, R&D, Starships).  Raytheon lost BILLIONS on that program..and eventually the demise of Beech came about in part because they refused to listen to people like Burt or John Roncz; who for sure are NOT Village Idiots (like me). RAF are the same folks that wrote your Quickie plans.   

 I still have to build a Vertical, Rudder, and Ailerons for my hangar queen. I will use Infusion as the method but not because it is particularly superior to the plans methods. More like dating that same cute girl from High School again.     

 Jim has it right. Deviate at this level and you should name it OTHER than a Quickie. 

 Lehman Frankenbird will be my chosen  :-)  

 Vern in Mannford, Okleehoma  



From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 

Good morning,

You’ve heard from very qualified glass people on this list and I think I know a little about it myself. They’ve warned you. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. This is basic stuff.

We’ve seen this scenario play out many times over the years, mostly with minimal to negative results. However, if you still feel the need, you may have the qualifications to reinvent the wheel. If that’s the case, go for it but don’t refer to it as a Quickie. Name it after yourself and don’t talk it up until your butt has flown in that seat for many hours. There are people in this list building that could get steered down the wrong path.

It’s only your life on the line. As built, works just fine. You CAN build a light airframe but that only happens if you know what you’re doing. I’m not trying to throw water on your plan but simply speaking from experience.

Good luck and I hope you are listening.

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
I built mine!
1,700 hours + on airframe.



Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 9:20:32 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Biaxial-traxial vs 7715 Fiberglass #epoxy
 
The video I watched about micro dusting doesn't replace the squeegee. Its a next step to pull and fill that last 1-5% and save time on sanding and finishing. It's supposed to be a better bond since its pulling the little bit of excess up from the base layers.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 08:33 One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Related where every ounce of epoxy counts. The peak of my rocket motor career. Filament Wound Case for the shuttle never used because of the Challenger disaster.




On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:23 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Fat fingered tail number 187CD


On Oct 17, 2020, at 6:16 AM, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

A roller can help wet the cloth and raise bubbles but the squeegee is the tool to remove excess epoxy. The glass weight is a given the epoxy weight is a huge variable in the final weight of the airplane. Burt Rutan basic course treats it all to get the lightest airframe.

Remember Voyager non-refueled around the world one flight. Burt knows follow his guidance.

I witnessed the fairing of an America’s Cup racing yacht to precision contour. I have incorporated some of that in my method of surfacing composites.

Like Sam the pro’s spread the micro on thick over the 75’ X 20’ hull. But they used trowels with big notches in them and went from keel to gunnels and called it noodling the hull. After it set they use 36 grit long boards to get the contour close to the laminate but not final. Then they used smooth trowels to fill in the gaps in the first layer saving a bunch of material and sanding. Wait a couple of days and 60 grit long board it to contour. Fill scratches with epoxy.

 In my opinion the micro dusting has flaws. First proper squeegeeing along the fiber Just to the point of pullIng air into the laminate (read Burt’s handbook) Is the way to get the fiber/resin ratio. Having extra epoxy on or under the surface and pouring glass bubbles on top will not make the lightest micro or laminate. 

Get it done right for light.

Charlie
Dragonfly 188CD 


On Oct 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


I've worked with tri-axel fiber and found it hard to wet out.  I do like the idea of a Teflon roller.  A squeegee pulls on the fibers and I'd expect that it leaves a rougher surface behind.  I don't like your idea of dusting a layup with micro.  I think it will not fill in the valleys at all.  Sams swipe will fill the valleys and give you a smooth surface.  For a one off foam cut, the plans hot wire method is cheap and easy with good results.  Don't waste time with CAD.
Get her done!
Mike Q200 N3QP

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 23:04 Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:
Which is actually of more benefit? 3 layers of unidirectional, or a sheet of woven triaxial? Or a sheet of biaxial with a sheet of uni? I was thinking the layup on my wings and canard could be better an lighter with the multilayer sheets instead of 3 individual plys. Sam Hoskins, I just watched your video on epoxy swipe method. I intend on incorporation of this method and another method of dabbing micro powder on a fresh layup to absorb excess epoxy and fill the gaps more efficiently. I also talked to one of the mechanics who work with me and he said the larger composite planes don't use squeegee much anymore. They use Teflon rollers. Has anyone here done that method as well? I'm looking to be efficient with my work and light in the end, mostly because I want a strong airframe. Could I also ask if anyone has an AUTOCAD file of the LS canard with the carbon spar, main wing and tail I could send to Mohr Composites for a final quote? I know at least one other person on here has expressed interest in getting some CNC hotwire work done. I'm hoping they'll help with a bulk discount or something. But if nothing else maybe just more motivation to cut some cores for us. Thanks in advance. 


Re: Q2 for SALE

Richard Kaczmarek 3RD
 

That is the DragonQ that the Gerbers use to own. It is a rather different and unique version of the Q.


On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 4:17 PM Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:
Nice!
Bruce Crain


On Oct 17, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Pat Weaver <pweaver311@...> wrote:


Hi, I thought it might be a good idea to list my Q2 before putting it up on Barnstormers; I figure this group is already very familiar with aircraft and might save me time answering a lot of questions. So, here it is, I am asking $14,000 for the Q2. It has a 65HP Revmaster 2100-D, 165 Hours TTAF&E. Fresh condition inspection in July. At 142 Hours the heads and jugs were replaced and cool tins were added. So far there have been no overheating issues at all that the prior owner had. It also has dual rudder pedals with differential brakes(matco), added at 142 Hours. New tires and spring steel gear also added. It has a radio and transponder, no ADSB. This Q2 has the dragonfly gear, LS1 canard, Reflexer and sparrow strainer.  It is located in Elkhart, Indiana at Elkhart Municipal airport. (KEKM) There is also a variable pitch Ultra Prop that is available to go with it if the price is right. 
We, my father and I, are selling it because we got an offer that we can't pass up from a hangar neighbor. She is selling her Zenith CH650 and it suits our needs much better. As many of you know the Quickie is not a big plane and it is hard for larger people to fit in it. Unfortunately everyone I planned on enjoying it are just too big. The Zenith will fit everyone comfortably and since it is a light sport my father can fly it with a lot less training and certification that is required for the Quickie; overall a plane much more suited for our needs. I hate to let it go, it is a sweet airplane; just not very practical in our situation. If anyone is interested, please send an email INDIVIDUALLY or call myself or my father, Dave. He is more likely to answer right away but I will call back as soon as I can if I don't answer. 

Dave - 574-238-1968

Patrick- 574-327-1150

More pictures are available, this is all I could fit in the email.  Thanks for checking it out!

Kind Regards,
Patrick W.

<20200308_162517.jpg>
<20200210_201150.jpg>
<20200210_201137.jpg>
<20200829_222309.jpg>



Re: Q2 for SALE

Bruce Crain
 

Nice!
Bruce Crain


On Oct 17, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Pat Weaver <pweaver311@...> wrote:


Hi, I thought it might be a good idea to list my Q2 before putting it up on Barnstormers; I figure this group is already very familiar with aircraft and might save me time answering a lot of questions. So, here it is, I am asking $14,000 for the Q2. It has a 65HP Revmaster 2100-D, 165 Hours TTAF&E. Fresh condition inspection in July. At 142 Hours the heads and jugs were replaced and cool tins were added. So far there have been no overheating issues at all that the prior owner had. It also has dual rudder pedals with differential brakes(matco), added at 142 Hours. New tires and spring steel gear also added. It has a radio and transponder, no ADSB. This Q2 has the dragonfly gear, LS1 canard, Reflexer and sparrow strainer.  It is located in Elkhart, Indiana at Elkhart Municipal airport. (KEKM) There is also a variable pitch Ultra Prop that is available to go with it if the price is right. 
We, my father and I, are selling it because we got an offer that we can't pass up from a hangar neighbor. She is selling her Zenith CH650 and it suits our needs much better. As many of you know the Quickie is not a big plane and it is hard for larger people to fit in it. Unfortunately everyone I planned on enjoying it are just too big. The Zenith will fit everyone comfortably and since it is a light sport my father can fly it with a lot less training and certification that is required for the Quickie; overall a plane much more suited for our needs. I hate to let it go, it is a sweet airplane; just not very practical in our situation. If anyone is interested, please send an email INDIVIDUALLY or call myself or my father, Dave. He is more likely to answer right away but I will call back as soon as I can if I don't answer. 

Dave - 574-238-1968

Patrick- 574-327-1150

More pictures are available, this is all I could fit in the email.  Thanks for checking it out!

Kind Regards,
Patrick W.

<20200308_162517.jpg>
<20200210_201150.jpg>
<20200210_201137.jpg>
<20200829_222309.jpg>


2581 - 2600 of 53004