Date   

Re: Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona,. June 15 2021

Jay Scheevel
 

This plane was purchased by Peter Stein from Texas. He was listed as the passenger on the accident report, and he is in critical condition in hospital in the Phoenix area. The pilot died in the crash, I did not recognize the name. Peter is the same person who flew with Bruce in Enid last December to get him familiar with the Tri-Q.

 

The plane departed San Diego the day before the accident and flew to a private airport, 29AZ, about 10 miles west of the accident airport E63 at Gila Bend, just SW of Phoenix. My guess is that he flew from the private airport, which has no fuel, via a short hop to the nearby Gila Bend public airport earlier in the morning to get fuel and then was departing, when the accident occurred.

 

I suspect the two men were ferrying the plane back to Texas. It was VERY hot in the valley of the sun yesterday, and the crash was just after takeoff, so I would suspect something like a vapor lock, since the engine was probably hot when they were fueling.

 

Based on the news helicopter photos, the wreckage was just off and to the right of the runway centerline, just outside the airport boundary fence. May have even clipped the fence.

 

All speculation on my part, except for the timeline which I checked online.

 

Jay

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bill Higdon via groups.io
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 8:12 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona,. June 15 2021

 

Here's the link to the FAA report not a lot there right now https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N8054Y


Re: Location of Reflexor Control

Sam Hoskins
 

Corbin, I have mine in the center console, just aft of the stick and operate it with my left hand. It's mostly set-and-forget. I adjust it before takeoff, in cruise flight and when slowing down to enter the pattern. 

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:14 PM Corbin via groups.io <c_geiser=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good afternoon all,

While I am in progress on the panel upgrade and re-mounting controls I wondered if anyone had their reflexor push/pull in a different location that they like better.  I think the plans called for it to be in the middle at a 30-degree tilt.  Mine is over on the left side aft of the throttle.  Seems like a good location to me and keeps my right hand free on the stick so I don't really have any problems.  But has anyone found an even better location that could be considered?  I am going to do something with my alt air control as it is just too crammed down under the throttle and mixture and is hard to reach.

--

Corbin 
N121CG


Re: Location of Reflexor Control

Corbin
 

Interesting!  Mine is easy to forget about since it is black and down out of sight.   But is a clean install and looks nice.  I like the idea of your throttle being a lever instead of a push/pull.
--

Corbin 
N121CG


Re: 9 photos uploaded #photo-notice

Corbin
 

Hey Mike,

I have a built-in pocket on the right side that is perfect for a phone or sunglasses.  I could definitely benefit from a larger pocket.  I will look into the RF connectors as there 1-2 that are no longer being used but are still there from a previous setup.  

This is perfect timing to look into the electric servo for the aileron trim!  I think I remember seeing a model or brand posted so I will try and dig that up.  Thanks for that tip.  

This exhaust has always been a 2-1 but crossed over in front of the engine.  I stayed with 2-1 but simplified without crossing over.  That was a long and expensive project so I think I just want to never mess with exhaust again....hopefully I won't have issues.  From what I can tell, only one plug is possibly burning a bit more.  Now that I have the Lightspeed dual ignition and different exhaust setup I will monitor the plugs more closely once flying again.

Yes, there are balancers on the elevators but you gave me a good idea that this is the perfect time to adjust my aileron balancers now that I can easily get to them.  I have a little too much weight on the left one, I believe.
--

Corbin 
N121CG


Re: Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona,. June 15 2021

Bill Higdon
 

Here's the link to the FAA report not a lot there right now https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N8054Y


Re: Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona,. June 15 2021

Brian Larick
 

Any update on this?  Saw the early information.  Not much there.  



Brian

On Jun 17, 2021, at 21:40, Bill Higdon via groups.io <willard561@...> wrote:


A private experimentally built Quickie Q2 Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona.
The airplane was destroyed by the ensuing post crash fire and one of the two occupants onboard was fatally injured. The second occupant onboard was seriously injured.
The Q2 is a tandem wing design, having one forward wing (canard) and one rear wing (instead of the more usual main wing and horizontal stabilizer). The elevators are fitted to the forward wing so that all pitch control comes from the forward wing, similar to the canard configuration. The Quickie Q2 variant is a two-seat aircraft with a 64-horsepower (48 kW) Volkswagen air-cooled engine and could be constructed as a Tri-Q with tricycle rather than conventional landing gear.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/one-dead-in-plane-crash-near-gila-bend-municipal-airport-arizona-plane-crash-june-15-2021/75-3f94e417-4c99-4cc8-94be-78f1550ec45a
https://cdn.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/264043


Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona,. June 15 2021

Bill Higdon
 

A private experimentally built Quickie Q2 Tri-Q, registration N8054Y, impacted the terrain shortly after takeoff from Gila Bend Municipal Airport (E63), Maricopa County, Arizona.
The airplane was destroyed by the ensuing post crash fire and one of the two occupants onboard was fatally injured. The second occupant onboard was seriously injured.
The Q2 is a tandem wing design, having one forward wing (canard) and one rear wing (instead of the more usual main wing and horizontal stabilizer). The elevators are fitted to the forward wing so that all pitch control comes from the forward wing, similar to the canard configuration. The Quickie Q2 variant is a two-seat aircraft with a 64-horsepower (48 kW) Volkswagen air-cooled engine and could be constructed as a Tri-Q with tricycle rather than conventional landing gear.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/one-dead-in-plane-crash-near-gila-bend-municipal-airport-arizona-plane-crash-june-15-2021/75-3f94e417-4c99-4cc8-94be-78f1550ec45a
https://cdn.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/264043


Re: Location of Reflexor Control

Chris Walterson
 

Corbin----------  This is my reflexor controler.   The throttle is the black lever the turbo is the smaller red and in front is the reflexor control.

 If it looks like a lawn mower throttle cable, that is because it is. I've had this system on my other airplane for 25 years. Still working.

 Take care-------------  Chris



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


Re: 9 photos uploaded #photo-notice

Mike Dwyer
 

Great pictures Corbin.  Very high resolution.  I got a couple of suggestions if you want to think about one day.  With your interior, I sewed in a large pocket on each side.  Real useful for holding stuff you want to access in flight!  With RF connectors, you lose a great deal of the signal with each connector you go through.  I noticed one of yours going into the rear shell where you used a barrel to connect two male BNC's.  Cut off one of the males and put a female on one of the wires and you'll eliminate one connector.  This is especially bad on Transponders due to the 1,000 Megahertz operating frequency.  BNC's drop half your power!  That complicated aileron trim, just put an electric servo at the aileron belcrank and you'd eliminate the pulleys, torque tube with universal joints...  That "W" comm antenna.  I tried one unsuccessfully.  I believe it radiates more to the sides than front/back.  I went to a loop type com antenna and have been happy with that.  2:1 Exhaust.... I considered that but the firing order is 1-3-2-4 or in other terms right side-right side then left side left side.  You really don't want two power pulses in one pipe then no pulses.  Makes for back pressure for cyls 3 and 4.  At least that's what I read.  See if your plugs are burning evenly?  I put a screen on the back of my luggage compartment so now I can just throw bags back there.  I built covers for all the important stuff so luggage can't jam it.  I didn't see, do you have mass balancers on your elevators?  
 
Great looking plane!
Mike Dwyer

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF



Location of Reflexor Control

Corbin
 

Good afternoon all,

While I am in progress on the panel upgrade and re-mounting controls I wondered if anyone had their reflexor push/pull in a different location that they like better.  I think the plans called for it to be in the middle at a 30-degree tilt.  Mine is over on the left side aft of the throttle.  Seems like a good location to me and keeps my right hand free on the stick so I don't really have any problems.  But has anyone found an even better location that could be considered?  I am going to do something with my alt air control as it is just too crammed down under the throttle and mixture and is hard to reach.

--

Corbin 
N121CG


9 photos uploaded #photo-notice

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


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


On Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 11:26 PM ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
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. 
     Thanks, Ryan


Re: Fuel system diagram

Sam Hoskins
 

Here is my system, in my photos section. Hope it helps. 


Sam 


On Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 10:26 PM ryan goodman via groups.io <elboy0712=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
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. 
     Thanks, Ryan


Fuel system diagram

ryan goodman
 

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. 
     Thanks, Ryan


Re: Some Qs

Tim
 

Thanks Jay - very helpful.
Will see how it looks at the weekend.


Re: Flight report

Jay Scheevel
 

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@...
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@...>
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: Flight report

Jay Scheevel
 

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@...>
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: Some Qs

Jay Scheevel
 

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,

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

Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.


Re: Some Qs

Jay Scheevel
 

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
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 12:23 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Some Qs

 

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

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

2821 - 2840 of 55033