Date   

Re: saturday Zoom session

Michel Royer
 

Thx Dave....

I was never a fan of suction cup being afraid of having it falling, but from your experience it seems to be
holding good if you have been using it for that long.

I will be trying it out as it would be a perfect setup for me as I have no room on the panel..
Regards


Re: Fuselage assembly

Jeffrey Bevilacqua <jlbevila@...>
 

Correct. UL power 350IS. Just finishing up the new cowling. Then will do my first engine start. I would have already been flying if I used the smaller engine to fit my cowl. Thanks for the advise Richard. 


On Dec 13, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD <fastlittleairplanes@...> wrote:

Unfortunately we have had experience with the different types of tank slosh and like I believe Sam said don't do it. If you want to check the tank don't put fuel in instead do a 24 hour balloon test. Refresh my memory you have the ULPower on the Dragonfly correct?

Richard


Re: Fuselage assembly

Richard Kaczmarek 3RD
 

Unfortunately we have had experience with the different types of tank slosh and like I believe Sam said don't do it. If you want to check the tank don't put fuel in instead do a 24 hour balloon test. Refresh my memory you have the ULPower on the Dragonfly correct?

Richard


Re: Fuselage assembly

Jeffrey Bevilacqua <jlbevila@...>
 

Richard, I’d rather not use fuel tank sealant if I don’t need it but will need to fuel it to see the tanks integrity. Do you have any experience with the epoxy slosh used in a tank after it contained fuel and then drained and dried. Thanks. 


On Dec 13, 2020, at 6:51 AM, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD <fastlittleairplanes@...> wrote:


Proseal is great for aluminum tanks but does not like any type of auto fuels do to additives outside of ethanol/methanol and it never fully hardens. Van's aircraft uses it to seal their tanks. We have always used Rhino 9700 on epoxy tanks it was created to protect epoxy structures from acids and alchohol it is a great way to make sure a fiberglass epoxy tank never leaks. Since it is an epoxy with a Novak backbone it will not peel like other tank coatings. It does not work on a metal surface. It has been used for years by Lancair in all their tanks as well as A2CZ and other epoxy build aircraft. 

Richard

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 7:30 AM Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:
Pure epoxy works just fine. Just make sure you have good coverage. An aluminum tank makes no sense. As for compounds to prevent leaks, that's what the epoxy is for. I have heard of people of applying sealant to the inside of the tanks and it peeled off and made a big complicated mess. Again, you're looking at a solution in search of a problem.

Sam Hoskins 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:00 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt 


On Dec 12, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.


Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Frankenbird Vern
 

 What is the mechanical/drive motor you used?  


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:24 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
 
Mac server from. ACS.  Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.

-------- Original message --------
From: smeshno1@...
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

 I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex 
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.  

 My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam. 

 He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
 is another one added to the list of items to track down. 

 Vern    


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 9:26 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
 
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim.  I use the reflexer for pitch trim.  I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying a trimmed airplane.

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end. 

As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.

Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.

Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.

Rich T.

On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.  
Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Fuselage assembly

Jay Scheevel
 

Welcome, Mike.

 

I have never heard of a bell pan.  Can you send a picture?

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Steinsland
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:15 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io Group Moderators <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Fuselage assembly

 

Hi guys

My name is Mike

I live in Parry Sound  Ontario. 

 

I just picked up a project that I plan on getting into after the new year and all the business of the holidays are over

I have a ton of questions but I'll save them for later when I can keep up the corespondence. 

One question I do have since you're on the topic 

I do have what appears to be aftermarket drawings of the bell pan install

They're pretty messy to read

Dies anyone have any clear drawings? 

 

Lots of good stuff I have been reading for the last month from you guys

I'm looking forward to the project 

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 9:51 AM Richard Kaczmarek 3RD, <fastlittleairplanes@...> wrote:

Proseal is great for aluminum tanks but does not like any type of auto fuels do to additives outside of ethanol/methanol and it never fully hardens. Van's aircraft uses it to seal their tanks. We have always used Rhino 9700 on epoxy tanks it was created to protect epoxy structures from acids and alchohol it is a great way to make sure a fiberglass epoxy tank never leaks. Since it is an epoxy with a Novak backbone it will not peel like other tank coatings. It does not work on a metal surface. It has been used for years by Lancair in all their tanks as well as A2CZ and other epoxy build aircraft. 

 

Richard

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 7:30 AM Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:

Pure epoxy works just fine. Just make sure you have good coverage. An aluminum tank makes no sense. As for compounds to prevent leaks, that's what the epoxy is for. I have heard of people of applying sealant to the inside of the tanks and it peeled off and made a big complicated mess. Again, you're looking at a solution in search of a problem.

 

Sam Hoskins 

 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:00 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt 



On Dec 12, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.


Re: Fuselage assembly

Mike Steinsland
 

Hi guys
My name is Mike
I live in Parry Sound  Ontario. 

I just picked up a project that I plan on getting into after the new year and all the business of the holidays are over
I have a ton of questions but I'll save them for later when I can keep up the corespondence. 
One question I do have since you're on the topic 
I do have what appears to be aftermarket drawings of the bell pan install
They're pretty messy to read
Dies anyone have any clear drawings? 

Lots of good stuff I have been reading for the last month from you guys
I'm looking forward to the project 


On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 9:51 AM Richard Kaczmarek 3RD, <fastlittleairplanes@...> wrote:
Proseal is great for aluminum tanks but does not like any type of auto fuels do to additives outside of ethanol/methanol and it never fully hardens. Van's aircraft uses it to seal their tanks. We have always used Rhino 9700 on epoxy tanks it was created to protect epoxy structures from acids and alchohol it is a great way to make sure a fiberglass epoxy tank never leaks. Since it is an epoxy with a Novak backbone it will not peel like other tank coatings. It does not work on a metal surface. It has been used for years by Lancair in all their tanks as well as A2CZ and other epoxy build aircraft. 

Richard

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 7:30 AM Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:
Pure epoxy works just fine. Just make sure you have good coverage. An aluminum tank makes no sense. As for compounds to prevent leaks, that's what the epoxy is for. I have heard of people of applying sealant to the inside of the tanks and it peeled off and made a big complicated mess. Again, you're looking at a solution in search of a problem.

Sam Hoskins 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:00 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt 


On Dec 12, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.


Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

Mac server from. ACS.  Yes, there is an indicator for server. You have to figure how you want server to hook to ailerons to reflex.
I dont think electric belly board is of value.

-------- Original message --------
From: smeshno1@...
Date: 12/13/20 10:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

 I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex 
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.  

 My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam. 

 He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
 is another one added to the list of items to track down. 

 Vern    


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 9:26 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
 
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim.  I use the reflexer for pitch trim.  I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying a trimmed airplane.

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end. 

As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.

Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.

Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.

Rich T.

On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.  
Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Dave and Jay videos!!!

Bruce Crain
 

Man I loved those videos you two posted!!  If I were still building those would definitely give me a shot in the "go get em"!  Nice landing also you guys!
Thank you!
Bruce Crain



Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Frankenbird Vern
 

 I like this idea, Jerry. Do tell the parts involved please. Also.. you have an indicator of some sort for reflex 
position for takeoff? My first thoughts are aerodynamics would be improved with your system as well as
constant trim under thumb being an intuitive process.  

 My first CFI was a hard nosed airforce instructor that flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam. 

 He demanded I remain in a trimmed aircraft all the time. Forward hinged belly board also electric
 is another one added to the list of items to track down. 

 Vern    


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 9:26 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards
 
To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim.  I use the reflexer for pitch trim.  I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying a trimmed airplane.

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end. 

As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.

Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.

Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.

Rich T.

On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.  
Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

To the contrary, I have my reflexer electric and operated by the trim button on my stick. I do not have elevator trim.  I use the reflexer for pitch trim.  I am trimming all the time, depending upon stick pressures. That way I am always flying a trimmed airplane.

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end. 

As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.

Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.

Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.

Rich T.

On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.  
Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: saturday Zoom session

Dave Dugas
 

Hi Michel
I've had this mount for a maybe 10 years. It's been so long ago, I don't think it's a specific brand. I know it came from Walmart and was less than $15. 


On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 5:59 AM, Michel Royer
<royerm2@...> wrote:
Very smooth landing....
Dave..  May I ask you,,, what makes is you suction mount that we see in the video holding an iPad.

It seems to be holding very well..
Regards


Re: Fuselage assembly

Richard Kaczmarek 3RD
 

Proseal is great for aluminum tanks but does not like any type of auto fuels do to additives outside of ethanol/methanol and it never fully hardens. Van's aircraft uses it to seal their tanks. We have always used Rhino 9700 on epoxy tanks it was created to protect epoxy structures from acids and alchohol it is a great way to make sure a fiberglass epoxy tank never leaks. Since it is an epoxy with a Novak backbone it will not peel like other tank coatings. It does not work on a metal surface. It has been used for years by Lancair in all their tanks as well as A2CZ and other epoxy build aircraft. 

Richard

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020, 7:30 AM Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:
Pure epoxy works just fine. Just make sure you have good coverage. An aluminum tank makes no sense. As for compounds to prevent leaks, that's what the epoxy is for. I have heard of people of applying sealant to the inside of the tanks and it peeled off and made a big complicated mess. Again, you're looking at a solution in search of a problem.

Sam Hoskins 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:00 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt 


On Dec 12, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.


Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Richard Thomson
 

Already made a new lever with the ratchet, but it's easy enough to lock in or out either end. 

As the rest is already there, manual sounds the easiest option for me with a new bit of leverage sorted out.

Went with the manual reflex for those same reasons, also keeping power consumption low and weight down.

Sometimes 2 cents is worth a fortune Jerry.

Rich T.

On 13/12/2020 12:44, Jerry Marstall wrote:
My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.  
Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Jerry Marstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

My 2-cents. Manual is faster to deploy and bring up.. No needed for incremental use ( no notches in lever). It's either full up or full down.  
Jerry 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/13/20 5:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Fuselage assembly

Sam Hoskins
 

Pure epoxy works just fine. Just make sure you have good coverage. An aluminum tank makes no sense. As for compounds to prevent leaks, that's what the epoxy is for. I have heard of people of applying sealant to the inside of the tanks and it peeled off and made a big complicated mess. Again, you're looking at a solution in search of a problem.

Sam Hoskins 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:00 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt 


On Dec 12, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.


Re: saturday Zoom session

Michel Royer
 

Very smooth landing....
Dave..  May I ask you,,, what makes is you suction mount that we see in the video holding an iPad.

It seems to be holding very well..
Regards


Re: Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Richard Thomson
 

Good idea Richard, Van's flap motor. gives more options. Thanks.

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 20:54, Richard Kaczmarek 3RD wrote:
From my personal experience of having flown both I prefer the TriQ brake over the forward belly board. The placement does not cause the pitch change that we experienced with Doug's old Q2. We turned our original TriQ board around from the original rear hinge to the front due to seeing it flutter in flight. With the hinge on the front side we no longer ended up with exhaust smells in the cockpit during landings and the plane experienced an overall speed increase (door no longer grabbing air in the fludder) it can also handle being on a servo with a front hinge or even the Van's flap motor so you can see the degrees of deployment. 

Richard 

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
Date: 12/12/20 3:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q vs QAC Belly Boards

Hi Michael,

On my TriQ I have similar concerns to those Jerry notes in the mod write up, in fact when I got it, the belly board had been bolted shut and the handle was removed. I have replaced it to the TriQ plan, but it does sit slightly proud, at the corners, so for me Jerry's mod is something I will look to do on mine next year after we have got it flying.

The Triq nose gear fits along the underneath of the Canard, so probably not possible to use the Q2/Q200 Belly board, if you are wondering why there are 2 versions.

Br

Rich T.

On 12/12/2020 18:06, Michael wrote:
Figured I would post these based on today's discussion. Both sets of plans are available on Quickheads for comparison. Turns out my Q2 has the Tri-Q version (not sure why), so worth checking if you have a new or new-to-you Quickie?

QAC Q2/Q200 Belly Board Plans
Tri-Q Belly Board Drag Brake (Option)

The primary difference is in location, geometry, and materials:
  1. The QAC version uses a carbon board originally sold as part of an upgrade kit, while the Tri-Q version uses the foam cut from the fuselage.
  2. From the hinge, the QAC version is a long & tall rectangle, while the Tri-Q version is a narrow & wide rectangle.
  3. The QAC version is located between the canard spar and under the forward part of the fuel tank (see last page of PDF), while the Tri-Q version goes behind the seat back bulkhead in the baggage/landing gear area (see last figure).
Both versions hinge from the rear and "scoop" air up from the front; although Jerry Marstall has flipped his around for reasons he explains. Haven't flown mine yet, so hopefully some experienced Q-drivers can chime in on what (if any) handling differences exist between the two versions...

Hope it helps,
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Fuselage assembly

Jay Scheevel
 

I‘ve never used it, but hey knock yourself out. I would think it can’t hurt 


On Dec 12, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Cody <cody.craig1985@...> wrote:

Jay wouldn't proseal work as well? I have a lot of that at the shop I was thinking about using.


Re: saturday Zoom session

Jay Scheevel
 

Hey thanks, Dave. That’s the model GoPro I have. Will check it out 


On Dec 12, 2020, at 6:57 PM, Dave Dugas via groups.io <davedq2@...> wrote:

Jay
I liked your video. Depending on what GoPro you are using you can find the right cable here. I have the GoPro Hero 7 Black. Here's a link to the one that I have.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Nflightcam-Audio-Solution-GoPro-Hero5/dp/B01MT3Q50Y&ved=2ahUKEwj7sNTt68ntAhWFjVkKHZMnCBAQFjABegQIBhAJ&usg=AOvVaw3AU9JrKJFXA1C8n1OO9iNv

Dave D

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:47 PM, Jay Scheevel
<jay@...> wrote:

Hi Dave,

 

How did you get your audio onto the GoPro? I have a gopro, but don’t have clue on how to use it properly. Here is a link to my one and only flight video using it, and the image stabilizer will drive you crazy, since it makes each turn seem jerky. I will find a way to turn that off someday.  I added piano music using Youtube processing choices.

https://youtu.be/egzzJWfkGEk

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave Dugas via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 2:57 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] saturday Zoom session

 

Sorry but I'm new to this stuff.... Try this link.

 

Q2 GoPro videos

Q2 GoPro videos

 

Dave D

 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 4:28 PM, Michael

<dunningme@...> wrote:

Thanks Dave! I think all your videos are listed as "private", so we can't search for them:

<image001.png>

--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)

<image001.png>

4161 - 4180 of 55033