|
9 photos uploaded
#photo-notice
main@Q-List.groups.io Notification <noreply@...>
The following photos have been uploaded to the Corbin Geiser (KDTO - Denton, Texas) album of the main@Q-List.groups.io group.
By: Corbin <c_geiser@...>
|
|
|
|
Re: Fuel system diagram
Mike Dwyer
The Q2 had a different system than the Q200. The Q200 system was superior, but you'd have to rebuild the header tank. Mike Dwyer
Can anyone point me to a diagram of the fuel system. Mine is totally rotted out so I gave no idea what the original routing was. Me to replace all the lines.
|
|
|
|
Re: Fuel system diagram
Here is my system, in my photos section. Hope it helps. Sam
Can anyone point me to a diagram of the fuel system. Mine is totally rotted out so I gave no idea what the original routing was. Me to replace all the lines.
|
|
|
|
Fuel system diagram
ryan goodman
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
Tim
Thanks Jay - very helpful.
Will see how it looks at the weekend.
|
|
|
|
Re: Flight report
Hi Vern,
Forgot to mention that my redline is 3300 rpm. The factory dyno indicates 121 HP at 3300, and the torque curve is relatively flat, so HP scales pretty linearly under load. Using fuel consumption (when leaned to best power), you can get a good idea of HP being generated under prop load. The formula for this computation is [12 hp/gallon/hour]. This is fairly accurate for most engines, since energy efficiency is nearly the same for any normally aspirated engine. Using this method, my Jabiru power output (percent of max power) turns out to be the fuel flow in (gph X 10) which is easy to do in my head in the cockpit. So, when I was at 17,700 DA, and burning 3.9 gph, I was getting 39% of max power, or 47 HP.
Here is my power chart using two different methods. That simple fuel consumption method is in the right column, the other formula is shown at the top and computed in the table assuming a standard day. The region on the table outside the red dashed outline, has essentially no risk of detonation, regardless of leaning condition. Inside the outline, detonation risk increases towards the upper right, although with my 7:1 compression ratio, the risk is still pretty low. I keep a copy of this table in the operator documents.
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 10:53 AM To: main@Q-List.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Flight report
Hi Vern,
Paul Chernikeeff, the founder/owner of Rotec told me that the Rotec TBI is an exact copy of the Ellison. Elision went out of business and their patent had run out, so Rotec, just copied it and started marketing it and using it on their radial engines. I am very happy with it. Only shortcoming is really just a shortcoming of the Jabiru induction manifold, which is too small to get uniform fuel mixture. On a Lycoming it would be much better, maybe even as good as EFI for mixture control. Someday, I may fabricate a larger induction system. Jabiru actually makes a larger one for their current generation of engines.
Putting in the Jabiru, which is lighter than the O-200 required an engine mount that put it slightly forward. It is narrower, so a commensurate reduction in the prop extension meant that it could fit under the Q-200 cowling. I modified that for the radiator airflow. Luckily, Paul Spackman had already installed a Jab 3300 in his Q2 and the guy that fabricated his engine mount built one for me also. Paul’s was air cooled and he had the GU canard and it was very fast. The current generation of Jabirus have heads permanently fixed to the cylinder like the Lyc/Cons so water cooling is not an option. If you are considering the Jabiru as a powerplant, there is lots more you should know before making that decision. Contact me offline and I can give you all the pros and cons.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of 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@...>
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
|
|
|
|
Re: Flight report
Hi Vern,
Paul Chernikeeff, the founder/owner of Rotec told me that the Rotec TBI is an exact copy of the Ellison. Elision went out of business and their patent had run out, so Rotec, just copied it and started marketing it and using it on their radial engines. I am very happy with it. Only shortcoming is really just a shortcoming of the Jabiru induction manifold, which is too small to get uniform fuel mixture. On a Lycoming it would be much better, maybe even as good as EFI for mixture control. Someday, I may fabricate a larger induction system. Jabiru actually makes a larger one for their current generation of engines.
Putting in the Jabiru, which is lighter than the O-200 required an engine mount that put it slightly forward. It is narrower, so a commensurate reduction in the prop extension meant that it could fit under the Q-200 cowling. I modified that for the radiator airflow. Luckily, Paul Spackman had already installed a Jab 3300 in his Q2 and the guy that fabricated his engine mount built one for me also. Paul’s was air cooled and he had the GU canard and it was very fast. The current generation of Jabirus have heads permanently fixed to the cylinder like the Lyc/Cons so water cooling is not an option. If you are considering the Jabiru as a powerplant, there is lots more you should know before making that decision. Contact me offline and I can give you all the pros and cons.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of smeshno1@...
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 7:57 AM To: main@Q-List.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Flight report
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@...>
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
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
Hi Tim,
Here is the diagram from the Velocity XL plans. This is how I have mine set up, there are no phenolic spacers. I have replaced the phenolic spacers with 1/8” thick steel washers having the same ID and OD as the phenolic. Depending on how your gear fork is made, you may want to use the phenolic to get the nut in the sweet spot of the threads.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 6:54 PM To: main@Q-List.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Some Qs
Hi Tim,
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
I suspect someone substituted a piece of tubing for the stick component. Take a look at the bottom, where the stick pivots forward and back. There should be a little steel tube (full length bush) welded in there that captures the transverse AN3 bolt at the base of the stick. If that bush is not there, then you have a not got an original part, just a tube. The plate with 3 holes welded on the front and the bush in the base were present on all kits as far as I know.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim
Hi Sam,
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
Tim
Hi Sam,
Hopefully the photo works, I mean the plate welded to the front of the tube.  Thanks Bruce and Jay - I’ll have a look out for those plans and do a bit more research. Cheers, Tim
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
Hi Tim, Question number one. Refer to page 168 in the following document: http://n8wq.scheevel.com/documents/Q2_Q200_Plans_Abridged_for_Scheevel_Construction.pdf That will give you the layout for the elevator control that was standard with the Tri-Q plans. I did not build mine that way, but I just cut a tunnel in the top of the main tank and used the original Q-200 control system, but Tri-q2's with both types of elevator controls exist. If you build it per Tri-Q plans, make sure you carefully bond the support that is on the canard in a very robust way. We had one builder that had that support delaminate on him and nearly ended his first flight tragically. Second question. Tail cone screws. All planes that I have seen have the screws done per plans, but some, including mine have the fixed screws that are on the forward fuselage section filled and painted over. If it did it again, I would not do this, as they look better as screws than they do as "bumps" under the paint. Third question. The nose gear setup varies from plane to plane. The cupped washers are known as belleville washers in the hardware world. You can find more if you need them at Mcmaster Carr. The shape provides a spring effect when you tighten down on them. They are best placed on top of the nose fork, since that is where the spring is most needed. The phenolic is more of a spacer that allows everything to be set up and tightened without running out of threads when you tighten the large stop nut on the bottom of the assembly. Your gear is a velocity style gear, and if you want to see how velocity recommends setting the belleville washers and the phenolic, take a look on velocity aircraft website. They have some plans there. If you can't find them, let me know during the week when I am on my work computer and I can send you a document with the layout. Critical in the setup of the nose gear is to have the fork pivot angle set up right. Have a look at the plans in the document link above and you will see the recommendation (this is refering to the old style fork, not the velocity one you have, but the angle recommendation remains the same). This prevents it from shimmying too much. Cheers, Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2 N8WQ 150 hours.
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:42:38 -0700, "Tim" <timmrlw@...> wrote:
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: Q1 Fuselage comes up
Jerry Marstall
VERY nice! Jerry
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 3:19 PM Eugen Pilarski <interbus@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
3- yes the phenolic is to raise the angle of attack on the ground. You should know that if the nose gear wheel pant is in place it can come into contact with the prop. I drilled and tapped a bolt in the top of the fork after cutting away a part of the large welded washer (maybe 90 degrees which leaves 45 degrees left and right of center when turning on the ground). The tapped bolt is centered in the cutaway up close to the cut back washer so that the ends of the cutaway stops the fork before it turns far enough to contact the prop with the wheel pant.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Because of the above scenario the phenolic is the only thing between the large welded washer and the top of the fork. You shouldn’t try to cut the cupped spring washers as they will cut into the things they are contacted. So that leaves the cupped washers underneath the fork. Hope this helps. Bruce
On Jun 13, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Some Qs
1.) Can you be more specific about the stick extension you're referring to? 2.) Many of us have flat head screws on the front portion of the attachment, with pan head screws on the back. 3.) Sorry, I'm not a Tri-Q guy. Photos are helpful. Sam
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 4:42 PM Tim <timmrlw@...> wrote: Hi All,
|
|
|
|
Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up
David, thank you very much for the detailed information. After you send the first mail I check the plans too. You are right, I did not place the glass on the firewall yet and will do it Right away. Best regards Eugen Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 13.06.2021 um 22:34 schrieb David J. Gall <David@...>:
|
|
|
|
Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up
David J. Gall
“I did not catch up that point yet.”
I’m not sure I understand your reply. To clarify my point: plans page 4-3 comes before plans chapter 7 so glassing the firewall should have been completed before fuselage assembly. The instruction to do so is not explicit, but implied by the last line of text on page 4-3.
I don’t think it will affect structural integrity to glass the firewall after fuselage assembly but it will only get more difficult to rectify this omission the farther you progress without doing so.
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 12:55 PM To: main@q-list.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q1 Fuselage comes up
David, thank you for your note, I did not catch up that point yet. Von meinem iPhone gesendet
|
|
|
|
Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up
Eugene, It would be great if you could open a photo album with your photos. That way we would have them all in one place. Use your name for the album:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:19 PM Eugen Pilarski <interbus@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Q1 Fuselage comes up
David,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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@...>:
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
