Date   

Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up

Eugen Pilarski
 

David,
thank you for your note, I did not catch up that point yet. 

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 13.06.2021 um 21:42 schrieb David J. Gall <David@...>:



Eugen, aren’t you supposed to have 1 ply BID on each side of the firewall before fuselage assembly? See plans page 4-3.

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:19 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q1 Fuselage comes up

 

Hello Q-Community,

 

Today I start to sand the unique Q1 lines, please find the progress below.

 

Best regards 

 

Eugen 

 

<image001.jpg>
<image002.jpg>
<image003.jpg>
<image004.jpg>

 

Von meinem iPhone gesendet



Am 08.06.2021 um 00:16 schrieb Jay Scheevel <jay@...>:



Very nice work, Eugen. I hope that Burt Rutan gets to see your final product.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 3:47 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q1 Fuselage comes up

 

Dear Q-list Group,

 

the Q1 fuselage assembly progress is stil on going, the last bulkhead 110 is on his place. So the next step will curve the outside of the fuselage to create the unique Q1 lines. Please find a link to my website, scroll down a liltle bit to reach the picture.

 

 

During the whole progress I learn tons of stuff about foam, glass, resin, squeegee, flox, wet / dry / flush micro, vacuum bags and where my fingers should do not touch if sealing is placed and use all times a hat and much more ……………..what a wonderful journey :-) 

 

Thank you guys that you kick me in that path :-) 

 

Best regards

 

Eugen 


Re: O-235 on Q2

Robert Cringely
 

Jim Bede used such a swing-away mount on the BD-4.


On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 7:05 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
I seem to remember one 235 installation had a swing away mount. Or maybe I am imagining that.

Cheers,
Jay


On Jun 6, 2021, at 7:28 PM, Robert Cringely <bob@...> wrote:


There was a guy in Albuquerque in the 1990s who was putting an O-235 in his Dragonfly. I know because I bought the 2180 VW he removed to do it. An O-235 is wider than an O-200. I don't think it would fit very well.

Bob


On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 6:06 PM Bruce Crain <jcrain2@...> wrote:
I believe Sammy Hoskins and Bob Malecek were faster both with 0200’s both “pumped”
Bruce


On Jun 6, 2021, at 2:20 PM, Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:


Gary, was the O-235 any faster than a pumped up 0200?

Just curious,
Jim
N46JP Q200

Sent from Outer Space

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Gary McKirdy <gary.mckirdy21@...>
Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2021 12:05:52 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] O-235 on Q2
 
Yes, flown 2 o235 Qs, both in europe. both LS1 canard. It is perfectly doable but suggest you hang engine as far back as possible.

Gary

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 at 03:24, ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Anyone tried an O-235 on a Q2? I know it may be a bit heavy. Only asking because I have two hopped up ones sitting in my hangar and it sparked my curiosity 

Cross posted to Facebook group.

Ryan




Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up

David J. Gall
 

Eugen, aren’t you supposed to have 1 ply BID on each side of the firewall before fuselage assembly? See plans page 4-3.

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:19 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q1 Fuselage comes up

 

Hello Q-Community,

 

Today I start to sand the unique Q1 lines, please find the progress below.

 

Best regards 

 

Eugen 

 

 

Von meinem iPhone gesendet



Am 08.06.2021 um 00:16 schrieb Jay Scheevel <jay@...>:



Very nice work, Eugen. I hope that Burt Rutan gets to see your final product.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 3:47 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q1 Fuselage comes up

 

Dear Q-list Group,

 

the Q1 fuselage assembly progress is stil on going, the last bulkhead 110 is on his place. So the next step will curve the outside of the fuselage to create the unique Q1 lines. Please find a link to my website, scroll down a liltle bit to reach the picture.

 

 

During the whole progress I learn tons of stuff about foam, glass, resin, squeegee, flox, wet / dry / flush micro, vacuum bags and where my fingers should do not touch if sealing is placed and use all times a hat and much more ……………..what a wonderful journey :-) 

 

Thank you guys that you kick me in that path :-) 

 

Best regards

 

Eugen 


Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up

Eugen Pilarski
 

Hello Q-Community,

Today I start to sand the unique Q1 lines, please find the progress below.

Best regards 

Eugen 



Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 08.06.2021 um 00:16 schrieb Jay Scheevel <jay@...>:



Very nice work, Eugen. I hope that Burt Rutan gets to see your final product.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 3:47 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q1 Fuselage comes up

 

Dear Q-list Group,

 

the Q1 fuselage assembly progress is stil on going, the last bulkhead 110 is on his place. So the next step will curve the outside of the fuselage to create the unique Q1 lines. Please find a link to my website, scroll down a liltle bit to reach the picture.

 

 

During the whole progress I learn tons of stuff about foam, glass, resin, squeegee, flox, wet / dry / flush micro, vacuum bags and where my fingers should do not touch if sealing is placed and use all times a hat and much more ……………..what a wonderful journey :-) 

 

Thank you guys that you kick me in that path :-) 

 

Best regards

 

Eugen 


Re: Flight report

smeshno1@...
 

Quote from one US supplier, whom I trust and know personally.

"This is an outstanding carburetor, based on the initial Ellison design. It works equally well as gravity feed or pump fed. Although it is referred to as a “Throttle Body Injector” it is technically a diaphragm control, flat slide, float less carburetor. It will not pickup if subjected to negative G’s. It has full authority mixture control, and is known for very accurate mixture distribution. The ‘button’ on the diaphragm can be used as a primer, and the carb also has a bypass port to further prevent hard starting when hot. An affordable, brand new carb, in production many years and based on a very well proven design. I am a US service center for these carbs, so they need not be returned to the factory if any service is ever required.-Made in Australia."

 I've seen the 3300 on Zenith 701 and 601. Owners (West Coast and high DA bases) I spoke with were pleased with the powerplant. I suspect your actually obtaining around 107hp constant at 85% throttle setting (that would be 2500 to 2550 RPM). Your redline is 2750 RPM if I understand correctly. 
 
 A well thought out powerplant and it has proven itself to at least 18,000 ft PA. 

 For those that might choose this engine, what were your CG issues (and corrections) as compared to the O-200?
 
 I ask because the availability of Certificated Continentals and to some degree Lycoming (and Franklin) which we had in droves back in the 1980's is already a challenge 40 years later. I have made my decision on this topic but not everyone was hacked out of the clay to be a gearhead as I was. I own the equipment to back up the tasks as well so that is yet another factor.

 I admit to be a rather serious chicken in the air, and over ruff terrain even more so. I've had a CFI on Bi-annual review ask me why I was not having fun. He was a bit younger than I am (about 30 years). It's not that flying isn't deeply satisfying to me..it is!..but I realize my personality becomes quite stoic once the pre-flight begins. I guess it's the responsibility part that drives my seriousness. I was trained in a more or less military manner..my first CFI was a WW2 and Korean War Veteran Instructor known to be strict. At the time exactly what a wise assed 21 year old wannabe pilot needed. I crossed my 40 hours on my exam. Soloed at just over 5 hours. Fitzpatrik was a tuff old bastard but he put the right kind of fear in my kraut head right off the bat.     

 Flatland flying is at least a bit less tension, just give the storms a lot of respect. Lots of (hopefully) reasonable places to park below if need be. Travel out of the Midwest is nice when aviating because the hours of bored driving in mostly dull scenery is avoided. I was born and grew up my early years mostly in Kansas and Florida. FLAT.

 Now I live in Eastern Oklahoma which is a lot of lakes,trees,and hills. Not so many nice parking places if need be.
I'll be flying off my 40 hours at Cushing airport. Flat.

Vern         


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 10:43 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Flight report
 
Hi Vern,

Flying behind a modified Jabiru 3300.  (Six banger, horizontally opposed). It is modified with liquid cooled heads and I have a Rotec throttle body injector, so normally aspirated. Mike Dwyer asked about the ignition. I have one magneto and one fixed advance electronic ignition, so basic stuff on both fuel and ignition.

Yep, need to be vigilant of winds and DA when operating in the mountains, but the scenery is great!

Cheers,
Jay


On Jun 12, 2021, at 2:59 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 Yes indeed! So the numbers prove that the Q design is still a serious CAFE contender. Jay, your flying with which powerplant? Normally aspirated (I presume), carb or injection? 

 It is important to have the actual service ceiling known in the aircraft operations info. I lived in the Taos area for quite a while. Better know your location and winds aloft ALL the time. Too many flatlanders ended up permanently parked out on the slopes because they let the Ego take over at pre-flight! I learned to fly in Arkansas so for me it was a transition, and again when I lived the Pacific Northwest (sometimes busy as I was flying from Paine Field in Everett where my employer at the time flys BIG airliners to and from).   

 When the day comes for this test I'll be hoping to see some similar numbers! 😊 Big grins. Squeekers are always good after a challenge flight. 

Vern       

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 3:29 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Flight report
 

Took a flight this morning to check out my service ceiling. Sam mentioned that he thought I should do the service ceiling test during his comments at my hangar tour in April. I had filled the O2 bottle anticipating coming to Kevin’s fling in May and I never made it there, so I had some oxygen to experiment with. Took off with about 15 gallons of fuel and only me on board. The takeoff was at 6100’ DA and it got off smartly in less than 1500’ of runway.  I kept climbing steadily between 500 and 300 fpm showing around 105-110 mph IAS or around 125 TAS. Got up over 15,800 feet pressure altitude, and when it  slowed down, I grew bored of climbing at only 100 fpm, so I terminated the experiment. That was about 17,700 Density altitude, so I think I could climb to 18K pressure altitude on a standard day if I wanted to. At this point I pushed the nose over and got it trimmed up to fly level at a little over 15,800 PA. I was able to indicate 107 mph, which translated to 141 mph TAS and I was burning less than 4 gph! The wind was from the SW at 29 mph, so if I had turned to the NE and headed over the hills, I would have had minimum 2500’ feet clearance over the highest peaks and done 170 mph ground speed…at 4 gph, that would be very economical. The aircraft handling was solid during the entire flight. Controls were always agile. Also, the powerplant ran flawlessly all the way up and back down with no hesitations, roughness, heating/cooling problems, etc.

 

My conclusions: This airplane will do anything that I require it to do in order to fly safely in my high altitude environment, and I am very happy with the performance overall. Also, had a nice landing at the end. Smiley face. 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 151 hours.

<image003.jpg>


Re: Panel Progress

Richard Thomson
 

Here is a picture of mine in the baggage hold, just a better quality glass filled nylon socket with size 12 pins. Dont forget to put inline fuses in the feed lines incase of short circuit.

Box is just a few plys of Bid.

Rich T.

On 10/06/2021 16:37, Corbin via groups.io wrote:
Ahh...that is an interesting idea, Richard.  I am off to research that socket.  Appreciate it!
--

Corbin 
N121CG


Re: O-235 on Q2

Richard Thomson
 

Yep thats right, but he turned out to be a good guy after all !!

On 11/06/2021 23:25, Kevin Boddicker wrote:
First name same as yours?
On Jun 11, 2021, at 8:20 AM, Richard Thomson <richard@cloudland.co.uk> wrote:

 Was he a fugitive Jerry ?

:-)

On 06/06/2021 14:09, Jerry Marstall wrote:
Kimb u ll


-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io [mailto:main@Q-List.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021 10:50 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] O-235 on Q2

Yep. That would be correct. Kimball McAndrew.
On Jun 5, 2021, at 5:20 PM, Chris Walterson <dkeats@tbaytel.net> wrote:
 Years ago a fellow from Calgary Canada installed a 235 in his Q2. He is in the old newsletters somewhere.

I think his last name was Kimbell McAndrew or something like that. Some of the life long members may be able to

add more info. Take care------------ Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus






____________________________________________________________
Sponsored by https://www.newser.com/?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_taglines_more

Government Flips on Seizure of Reporters' Phone Records
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/60bc37d6cd38f37d6453fst01duc1
A Cryptocurrency CEO Died at 30, Then Things Got Weirder
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/60bc37d6f251337d6453fst01duc2
Plane Drops Off Passenger Screaming 'Stop the Plane'
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/60bc37d723a1f37d6453fst01duc3
















Re: Panel Progress

Richard Thomson
 

Well I had similar thoughts to Sam, but thanks Jay, that helps me understand why its there. Mine had a cobbled up thing originally which was scrap anyway , so will work on a lightweight replacement at some point.

Cheers guys.



On 12/06/2021 01:07, Jay Scheevel wrote:

You may be absolutely right Sam that is not needed, but the reason I put it there is not because of interference or friction, but because I know from solid mechanics that a minor flex can cause a long thin walled tube to buckle instantaneously when exposed to a torsional load if it is flexed slightly out of straight. I did not do the catastrophic yield threshold calculation to see how much of a deflection from straight would be required to fail under normal torsional working loads, but that was my reasoning, and it gives me peace of mind. The guard weighs much less than one pound.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 4:45 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Panel Progress

 

Honestly, IMHO a guard is not necessary, just adding weight and complexity. I have had luggage back there a lot, and I certainly imagine that it was rubbing on that torque tube at times. With absolutely no noticeable difference. Same with the rudder cables. 

 

Sam 

 

 

 

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 1:01 PM Richard Thomson <richard@...> wrote:

Hi Jay

I like the protection over the control tube, is that just glass ?

Do you think it would be sufficient to use heavy duty velcro on the flanges rather than nuts ?

Rich T.

On 11/06/2021 16:27, Jay Scheevel wrote:

Here’s my roll servo installation.

 

 


Re: Flight report

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Vern,

Flying behind a modified Jabiru 3300.  (Six banger, horizontally opposed). It is modified with liquid cooled heads and I have a Rotec throttle body injector, so normally aspirated. Mike Dwyer asked about the ignition. I have one magneto and one fixed advance electronic ignition, so basic stuff on both fuel and ignition.

Yep, need to be vigilant of winds and DA when operating in the mountains, but the scenery is great!

Cheers,
Jay


On Jun 12, 2021, at 2:59 PM, smeshno1@... wrote:


 Yes indeed! So the numbers prove that the Q design is still a serious CAFE contender. Jay, your flying with which powerplant? Normally aspirated (I presume), carb or injection? 

 It is important to have the actual service ceiling known in the aircraft operations info. I lived in the Taos area for quite a while. Better know your location and winds aloft ALL the time. Too many flatlanders ended up permanently parked out on the slopes because they let the Ego take over at pre-flight! I learned to fly in Arkansas so for me it was a transition, and again when I lived the Pacific Northwest (sometimes busy as I was flying from Paine Field in Everett where my employer at the time flys BIG airliners to and from).   

 When the day comes for this test I'll be hoping to see some similar numbers! 😊 Big grins. Squeekers are always good after a challenge flight. 

Vern       

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 3:29 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Flight report
 

Took a flight this morning to check out my service ceiling. Sam mentioned that he thought I should do the service ceiling test during his comments at my hangar tour in April. I had filled the O2 bottle anticipating coming to Kevin’s fling in May and I never made it there, so I had some oxygen to experiment with. Took off with about 15 gallons of fuel and only me on board. The takeoff was at 6100’ DA and it got off smartly in less than 1500’ of runway.  I kept climbing steadily between 500 and 300 fpm showing around 105-110 mph IAS or around 125 TAS. Got up over 15,800 feet pressure altitude, and when it  slowed down, I grew bored of climbing at only 100 fpm, so I terminated the experiment. That was about 17,700 Density altitude, so I think I could climb to 18K pressure altitude on a standard day if I wanted to. At this point I pushed the nose over and got it trimmed up to fly level at a little over 15,800 PA. I was able to indicate 107 mph, which translated to 141 mph TAS and I was burning less than 4 gph! The wind was from the SW at 29 mph, so if I had turned to the NE and headed over the hills, I would have had minimum 2500’ feet clearance over the highest peaks and done 170 mph ground speed…at 4 gph, that would be very economical. The aircraft handling was solid during the entire flight. Controls were always agile. Also, the powerplant ran flawlessly all the way up and back down with no hesitations, roughness, heating/cooling problems, etc.

 

My conclusions: This airplane will do anything that I require it to do in order to fly safely in my high altitude environment, and I am very happy with the performance overall. Also, had a nice landing at the end. Smiley face. 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 151 hours.

<image003.jpg>


Some Qs

Tim
 

Hi All,

I have a few questions which have come up during my completion…

1) Stick extension - I have noticed on the Q tours (thanks for those Sam and all) that some have the extension on the front of the stick and some don’t. I can see it in the LS1 plans. My Tri-Q200 with LS1 (dual elevator rods) doesn’t have this, the previous owner says it meets the control throw limits, but I have it in bits at the minute and didn’t check. Why was this mod introduced? (Avoids having to cut a tunnel into the tank?) 

2) Tail cone bolts - again in the tours I see some have the per plans dome headed screws and some you can’t see, have people fitting countersunk machine screws instead and filled over the heads?

3) My nose leg has a phenolic disc (adjusts deck angle?) plain washers and then 4-5 ‘cupped’ washers. I can’t see reference to this assembly in the plans, should I have this number of the cup washer or just one each side of the gear, I assume these allow you to preload the assembly without clamping down on it too much.

Thanks for reading! Tim


Re: Flight report

Mike Dwyer
 

Great flight report!  Please remind us what engine your running, and if your running mags or ee.  Thanks, Mike Q200


On Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:30 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Took a flight this morning to check out my service ceiling. Sam mentioned that he thought I should do the service ceiling test during his comments at my hangar tour in April. I had filled the O2 bottle anticipating coming to Kevin’s fling in May and I never made it there, so I had some oxygen to experiment with. Took off with about 15 gallons of fuel and only me on board. The takeoff was at 6100’ DA and it got off smartly in less than 1500’ of runway.  I kept climbing steadily between 500 and 300 fpm showing around 105-110 mph IAS or around 125 TAS. Got up over 15,800 feet pressure altitude, and when it  slowed down, I grew bored of climbing at only 100 fpm, so I terminated the experiment. That was about 17,700 Density altitude, so I think I could climb to 18K pressure altitude on a standard day if I wanted to. At this point I pushed the nose over and got it trimmed up to fly level at a little over 15,800 PA. I was able to indicate 107 mph, which translated to 141 mph TAS and I was burning less than 4 gph! The wind was from the SW at 29 mph, so if I had turned to the NE and headed over the hills, I would have had minimum 2500’ feet clearance over the highest peaks and done 170 mph ground speed…at 4 gph, that would be very economical. The aircraft handling was solid during the entire flight. Controls were always agile. Also, the powerplant ran flawlessly all the way up and back down with no hesitations, roughness, heating/cooling problems, etc.

 

My conclusions: This airplane will do anything that I require it to do in order to fly safely in my high altitude environment, and I am very happy with the performance overall. Also, had a nice landing at the end. Smiley face. 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 151 hours.


Re: Flight report

smeshno1@...
 

 Yes indeed! So the numbers prove that the Q design is still a serious CAFE contender. Jay, your flying with which powerplant? Normally aspirated (I presume), carb or injection? 

 It is important to have the actual service ceiling known in the aircraft operations info. I lived in the Taos area for quite a while. Better know your location and winds aloft ALL the time. Too many flatlanders ended up permanently parked out on the slopes because they let the Ego take over at pre-flight! I learned to fly in Arkansas so for me it was a transition, and again when I lived the Pacific Northwest (sometimes busy as I was flying from Paine Field in Everett where my employer at the time flys BIG airliners to and from).   

 When the day comes for this test I'll be hoping to see some similar numbers! 😊 Big grins. Squeekers are always good after a challenge flight. 

Vern       


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 3:29 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Flight report
 

Took a flight this morning to check out my service ceiling. Sam mentioned that he thought I should do the service ceiling test during his comments at my hangar tour in April. I had filled the O2 bottle anticipating coming to Kevin’s fling in May and I never made it there, so I had some oxygen to experiment with. Took off with about 15 gallons of fuel and only me on board. The takeoff was at 6100’ DA and it got off smartly in less than 1500’ of runway.  I kept climbing steadily between 500 and 300 fpm showing around 105-110 mph IAS or around 125 TAS. Got up over 15,800 feet pressure altitude, and when it  slowed down, I grew bored of climbing at only 100 fpm, so I terminated the experiment. That was about 17,700 Density altitude, so I think I could climb to 18K pressure altitude on a standard day if I wanted to. At this point I pushed the nose over and got it trimmed up to fly level at a little over 15,800 PA. I was able to indicate 107 mph, which translated to 141 mph TAS and I was burning less than 4 gph! The wind was from the SW at 29 mph, so if I had turned to the NE and headed over the hills, I would have had minimum 2500’ feet clearance over the highest peaks and done 170 mph ground speed…at 4 gph, that would be very economical. The aircraft handling was solid during the entire flight. Controls were always agile. Also, the powerplant ran flawlessly all the way up and back down with no hesitations, roughness, heating/cooling problems, etc.

 

My conclusions: This airplane will do anything that I require it to do in order to fly safely in my high altitude environment, and I am very happy with the performance overall. Also, had a nice landing at the end. Smiley face. 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 151 hours.


Re: Flight report

Jerry Marstall
 

Great report! Jerry 


On Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 4:30 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Took a flight this morning to check out my service ceiling. Sam mentioned that he thought I should do the service ceiling test during his comments at my hangar tour in April. I had filled the O2 bottle anticipating coming to Kevin’s fling in May and I never made it there, so I had some oxygen to experiment with. Took off with about 15 gallons of fuel and only me on board. The takeoff was at 6100’ DA and it got off smartly in less than 1500’ of runway.  I kept climbing steadily between 500 and 300 fpm showing around 105-110 mph IAS or around 125 TAS. Got up over 15,800 feet pressure altitude, and when it  slowed down, I grew bored of climbing at only 100 fpm, so I terminated the experiment. That was about 17,700 Density altitude, so I think I could climb to 18K pressure altitude on a standard day if I wanted to. At this point I pushed the nose over and got it trimmed up to fly level at a little over 15,800 PA. I was able to indicate 107 mph, which translated to 141 mph TAS and I was burning less than 4 gph! The wind was from the SW at 29 mph, so if I had turned to the NE and headed over the hills, I would have had minimum 2500’ feet clearance over the highest peaks and done 170 mph ground speed…at 4 gph, that would be very economical. The aircraft handling was solid during the entire flight. Controls were always agile. Also, the powerplant ran flawlessly all the way up and back down with no hesitations, roughness, heating/cooling problems, etc.

 

My conclusions: This airplane will do anything that I require it to do in order to fly safely in my high altitude environment, and I am very happy with the performance overall. Also, had a nice landing at the end. Smiley face. 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 151 hours.


Flight report

Jay Scheevel
 

Took a flight this morning to check out my service ceiling. Sam mentioned that he thought I should do the service ceiling test during his comments at my hangar tour in April. I had filled the O2 bottle anticipating coming to Kevin’s fling in May and I never made it there, so I had some oxygen to experiment with. Took off with about 15 gallons of fuel and only me on board. The takeoff was at 6100’ DA and it got off smartly in less than 1500’ of runway.  I kept climbing steadily between 500 and 300 fpm showing around 105-110 mph IAS or around 125 TAS. Got up over 15,800 feet pressure altitude, and when it  slowed down, I grew bored of climbing at only 100 fpm, so I terminated the experiment. That was about 17,700 Density altitude, so I think I could climb to 18K pressure altitude on a standard day if I wanted to. At this point I pushed the nose over and got it trimmed up to fly level at a little over 15,800 PA. I was able to indicate 107 mph, which translated to 141 mph TAS and I was burning less than 4 gph! The wind was from the SW at 29 mph, so if I had turned to the NE and headed over the hills, I would have had minimum 2500’ feet clearance over the highest peaks and done 170 mph ground speed…at 4 gph, that would be very economical. The aircraft handling was solid during the entire flight. Controls were always agile. Also, the powerplant ran flawlessly all the way up and back down with no hesitations, roughness, heating/cooling problems, etc.

 

My conclusions: This airplane will do anything that I require it to do in order to fly safely in my high altitude environment, and I am very happy with the performance overall. Also, had a nice landing at the end. Smiley face. 😊

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 151 hours.


Photo 0186343C-CE41-438B-8F95-0370E9E7E715.jpeg updated #photo-notice

main@Q-List.groups.io Notification <noreply@...>
 

The following photos have been updated in the Looking from my hangar. (KBVU) album of the main@Q-List.groups.io group.

By: Mike <n7000t@...>


Re: Panel Progress

Jay Scheevel
 

You may be absolutely right Sam that is not needed, but the reason I put it there is not because of interference or friction, but because I know from solid mechanics that a minor flex can cause a long thin walled tube to buckle instantaneously when exposed to a torsional load if it is flexed slightly out of straight. I did not do the catastrophic yield threshold calculation to see how much of a deflection from straight would be required to fail under normal torsional working loads, but that was my reasoning, and it gives me peace of mind. The guard weighs much less than one pound.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 4:45 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Panel Progress

 

Honestly, IMHO a guard is not necessary, just adding weight and complexity. I have had luggage back there a lot, and I certainly imagine that it was rubbing on that torque tube at times. With absolutely no noticeable difference. Same with the rudder cables. 

 

Sam 

 

 

 

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 1:01 PM Richard Thomson <richard@...> wrote:

Hi Jay

I like the protection over the control tube, is that just glass ?

Do you think it would be sufficient to use heavy duty velcro on the flanges rather than nuts ?

Rich T.

On 11/06/2021 16:27, Jay Scheevel wrote:

Here’s my roll servo installation.

 

 


Re: Panel Progress

Jay Scheevel
 

It is 1/8’ plywood with glass over the top. Velcro would probably work.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Richard Thomson
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 12:02 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Panel Progress

 

Hi Jay

I like the protection over the control tube, is that just glass ?

Do you think it would be sufficient to use heavy duty velcro on the flanges rather than nuts ?

Rich T.

On 11/06/2021 16:27, Jay Scheevel wrote:

Here’s my roll servo installation.

 


Re: Panel Progress

Sam Hoskins
 

Honestly, IMHO a guard is not necessary, just adding weight and complexity. I have had luggage back there a lot, and I certainly imagine that it was rubbing on that torque tube at times. With absolutely no noticeable difference. Same with the rudder cables. 

Sam 



On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 1:01 PM Richard Thomson <richard@...> wrote:

Hi Jay

I like the protection over the control tube, is that just glass ?

Do you think it would be sufficient to use heavy duty velcro on the flanges rather than nuts ?

Rich T.

On 11/06/2021 16:27, Jay Scheevel wrote:

Here’s my roll servo installation.

 


Re: O-235 on Q2

Kevin Boddicker
 

First name same as yours?

On Jun 11, 2021, at 8:20 AM, Richard Thomson <richard@cloudland.co.uk> wrote:

 Was he a fugitive Jerry ?

:-)

On 06/06/2021 14:09, Jerry Marstall wrote:
Kimb u ll


-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io [mailto:main@Q-List.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021 10:50 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] O-235 on Q2

Yep. That would be correct. Kimball McAndrew.
On Jun 5, 2021, at 5:20 PM, Chris Walterson <dkeats@tbaytel.net> wrote:
 Years ago a fellow from Calgary Canada installed a 235 in his Q2. He is in the old newsletters somewhere.

I think his last name was Kimbell McAndrew or something like that. Some of the life long members may be able to

add more info. Take care------------ Chris


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus






____________________________________________________________
Sponsored by https://www.newser.com/?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_taglines_more

Government Flips on Seizure of Reporters' Phone Records
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/60bc37d6cd38f37d6453fst01duc1
A Cryptocurrency CEO Died at 30, Then Things Got Weirder
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/60bc37d6f251337d6453fst01duc2
Plane Drops Off Passenger Screaming 'Stop the Plane'
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/60bc37d723a1f37d6453fst01duc3














Re: Panel Progress

Richard Thomson
 

Hi Jay

I like the protection over the control tube, is that just glass ?

Do you think it would be sufficient to use heavy duty velcro on the flanges rather than nuts ?

Rich T.

On 11/06/2021 16:27, Jay Scheevel wrote:

Here’s my roll servo installation.

 

781 - 800 of 52966