Date   

Re: New Group Member

Mike Dwyer
 

Welcome to the the group Brent.  Your Q2 looks great.  I'm curious what rate of climb your seeing.  Colorado is pretty high altitude.  FYI, if you ever consider flying south, those little round air vents won't cut it!  I started with those but ended up with a door over the NASA scoop that can be opened or closed. This allows a lot of air in when it's hot outside.  I do most of my flying at 90F here in FL. 
Fly Safe,
Mike Dwyer Q200

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 11:27 PM Brent Sherstan <brent.sherstan@...> wrote:
Hello everyone, as requested I will introduce my Q2.

It is serial #62 and was completed in 1984. It's been a bit of a hangar queen in that it only has 180 hrs on it. I am the third owner, the builder was David Lamoureux and I bought it off Norm Klassen in 2016. Norm only flew it around the area and I wanted to do a lot more with it, so I did a lot of work. I rebuilt the engine, installed new avionics, did a wheel alignment, and countless other things. Ultimately I'd only feel comfortable with it once I inspected and/or improved every little thing. I've flown it 3.6 hour last year and 0.4 this year as a result of some continued engine issues, but I'm fairly confident I've got it mostly sorted out (we shall see...).

All that work too way longer than I ever expected but I do have a young family at home (baby and a toddler), so there's not a lot of spare time to go around. It did allow me to go slow and steady though and I was able to read almost all of the Quicktalk and Q-talk archives. I've read a bunch of the old Yahoo groups material as well but haven't made it through all of it. As mentioned, I'm a former military helicopter pilot, and after a couple tours in Afghanistan, I knew it was time to go. I actually bought the Q2 with some of my severance money! By the time I was ready to fly the Q2, I had 20 hours of Q2 taxi time, 30 hours in a Citabria and 5 hours in a Vans RV6. I'd have to admit that I was plenty nervous for that first flight but in the end it was as docile as either of the other taildraggers I've flown (thanks to the wheel alignment and some other work I did on the tailwheel).

I included some before and after pictures. The airplane is white and yellow but I intend to paint it all white at some point. The avionics are a work in progress, I know a glass panel is more efficient but I just love the round gauges! I'm sure I'll add more functionality as I see the need though.

Glad to meet you all!
Brent


Re: New Group Member

Jim Patillo
 

Welcome Brent,

Looks like you’ve done a lot of work on your plane. Looks good. 
I just have one question, are your vortex generators mounted on the elevators? 

Best of Luck and good fortune with your upcoming flights. 

Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
Livermore, Ca


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Brent Sherstan <brent.sherstan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:27:34 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] New Group Member
 
Hello everyone, as requested I will introduce my Q2.

It is serial #62 and was completed in 1984. It's been a bit of a hangar queen in that it only has 180 hrs on it. I am the third owner, the builder was David Lamoureux and I bought it off Norm Klassen in 2016. Norm only flew it around the area and I wanted to do a lot more with it, so I did a lot of work. I rebuilt the engine, installed new avionics, did a wheel alignment, and countless other things. Ultimately I'd only feel comfortable with it once I inspected and/or improved every little thing. I've flown it 3.6 hour last year and 0.4 this year as a result of some continued engine issues, but I'm fairly confident I've got it mostly sorted out (we shall see...).

All that work too way longer than I ever expected but I do have a young family at home (baby and a toddler), so there's not a lot of spare time to go around. It did allow me to go slow and steady though and I was able to read almost all of the Quicktalk and Q-talk archives. I've read a bunch of the old Yahoo groups material as well but haven't made it through all of it. As mentioned, I'm a former military helicopter pilot, and after a couple tours in Afghanistan, I knew it was time to go. I actually bought the Q2 with some of my severance money! By the time I was ready to fly the Q2, I had 20 hours of Q2 taxi time, 30 hours in a Citabria and 5 hours in a Vans RV6. I'd have to admit that I was plenty nervous for that first flight but in the end it was as docile as either of the other taildraggers I've flown (thanks to the wheel alignment and some other work I did on the tailwheel).

I included some before and after pictures. The airplane is white and yellow but I intend to paint it all white at some point. The avionics are a work in progress, I know a glass panel is more efficient but I just love the round gauges! I'm sure I'll add more functionality as I see the need though.

Glad to meet you all!
Brent


Re: New Group Member

Brent Sherstan
 

Thanks Jay. I'm in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, but the Q2 is at Parkland Airport which is 3 hours north, just outside Edmonton. Once I finish off the High Performance Rating I can move the airplane closer. Unfortunately though, I live 10 minutes from Springbank Airport which is one of the most expensive airfields in Western Canada. It might be a while yet until I can find the right parking situation.

Brent


Re: New Group Member

Jay Scheevel
 

Very nice work Brent. Thanks for posting your info and story about your plane. You are definitely doing everything right. Where are you located?

Cheers,
Jay   Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 190 hours 
Grand Junction, Colorado 


On Sep 29, 2021, at 9:27 PM, Brent Sherstan <brent.sherstan@...> wrote:

Hello everyone, as requested I will introduce my Q2.

It is serial #62 and was completed in 1984. It's been a bit of a hangar queen in that it only has 180 hrs on it. I am the third owner, the builder was David Lamoureux and I bought it off Norm Klassen in 2016. Norm only flew it around the area and I wanted to do a lot more with it, so I did a lot of work. I rebuilt the engine, installed new avionics, did a wheel alignment, and countless other things. Ultimately I'd only feel comfortable with it once I inspected and/or improved every little thing. I've flown it 3.6 hour last year and 0.4 this year as a result of some continued engine issues, but I'm fairly confident I've got it mostly sorted out (we shall see...).

All that work too way longer than I ever expected but I do have a young family at home (baby and a toddler), so there's not a lot of spare time to go around. It did allow me to go slow and steady though and I was able to read almost all of the Quicktalk and Q-talk archives. I've read a bunch of the old Yahoo groups material as well but haven't made it through all of it. As mentioned, I'm a former military helicopter pilot, and after a couple tours in Afghanistan, I knew it was time to go. I actually bought the Q2 with some of my severance money! By the time I was ready to fly the Q2, I had 20 hours of Q2 taxi time, 30 hours in a Citabria and 5 hours in a Vans RV6. I'd have to admit that I was plenty nervous for that first flight but in the end it was as docile as either of the other taildraggers I've flown (thanks to the wheel alignment and some other work I did on the tailwheel).

I included some before and after pictures. The airplane is white and yellow but I intend to paint it all white at some point. The avionics are a work in progress, I know a glass panel is more efficient but I just love the round gauges! I'm sure I'll add more functionality as I see the need though.

Glad to meet you all!
Brent
<Sherstan Q2.JPG>
<Engine before.JPG>
<Cockpit before.JPG>
<Engine after.JPG>
<Cockpit after.JPG>


New Group Member

Brent Sherstan
 

Hello everyone, as requested I will introduce my Q2.

It is serial #62 and was completed in 1984. It's been a bit of a hangar queen in that it only has 180 hrs on it. I am the third owner, the builder was David Lamoureux and I bought it off Norm Klassen in 2016. Norm only flew it around the area and I wanted to do a lot more with it, so I did a lot of work. I rebuilt the engine, installed new avionics, did a wheel alignment, and countless other things. Ultimately I'd only feel comfortable with it once I inspected and/or improved every little thing. I've flown it 3.6 hour last year and 0.4 this year as a result of some continued engine issues, but I'm fairly confident I've got it mostly sorted out (we shall see...).

All that work too way longer than I ever expected but I do have a young family at home (baby and a toddler), so there's not a lot of spare time to go around. It did allow me to go slow and steady though and I was able to read almost all of the Quicktalk and Q-talk archives. I've read a bunch of the old Yahoo groups material as well but haven't made it through all of it. As mentioned, I'm a former military helicopter pilot, and after a couple tours in Afghanistan, I knew it was time to go. I actually bought the Q2 with some of my severance money! By the time I was ready to fly the Q2, I had 20 hours of Q2 taxi time, 30 hours in a Citabria and 5 hours in a Vans RV6. I'd have to admit that I was plenty nervous for that first flight but in the end it was as docile as either of the other taildraggers I've flown (thanks to the wheel alignment and some other work I did on the tailwheel).

I included some before and after pictures. The airplane is white and yellow but I intend to paint it all white at some point. The avionics are a work in progress, I know a glass panel is more efficient but I just love the round gauges! I'm sure I'll add more functionality as I see the need though.

Glad to meet you all!
Brent


Re: inspection

Frankenbird Vern
 

I am aware of the Phase 1 requirements depending on powerplant. Indeed, with the usual suspects 25 hours is the requirement. This why in part I will not claim the aircraft as either a Rutan Q2 nor Dragonfly. Actually the certification is named by the builders name. In my case it would be a Lehman Frankenbird powered by a 2.8L Corvair 6 cylinder. The powerplant data plate for serial number will be that same as the conversion manual I own from William Wynne, via FlyCorvair. Both of my aircraft equipped with converted Corvair 2.8L. I have two Manuals with separate build documents. Of course my Phase 1 must be a minimum 40 hours as regulations now stand. It is my intention to follow the EAA Manual for both aircraft. 


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 6:03 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection
 
I had informed my PAI about my intent to build a quickie 2 seater. He shared that he is an experimental enthusiast himself and would help me with my inspection, airworthiness paperwork requests etc. He also offered to be the one to come look at my plane when I hit that point. In talking to him, the quickie was almost a light sport aircraft here, with the exception of its high top speed rated with the O200 I was intending to install. The regulations Vern was mentioning, one of which is in place. (If you use a certified aircraft engine IE the O200...... you do not need to fly 40hrs for your cert.  It is reduced to 20-25 hrs. 


Re: inspection

Jay Scheevel
 

Sounds very positive Chris. Let us know what test program reveals.

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 6:19 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection

In Canada we need to fly 25 hrs at the same base. You have to land and takeoff there. No passengers unless it is crew. Can't have any major problems or mods otherwise back to square one.

We need to do a climb test and then send in the paperwork. After that.
Good to go.

One other thing my inspector found was in my fuel flow report I had only done the gravity flow to the gascolator.

On an injected engine you need to do the flow from the HP pump to the injectors [60gph] and also the return to the header

tank amount after the pressure relief .[40gph]

My inspector is great and I may look into getting my rating. I went on the runway a few times and it is similar to my little Q1 in the stance.

On the Dragonfly when you power up it takes a while for the wing to lift , then you get level and then you fly, but in the Q2 I feel close to level already. I think I sit at the recommended 7 -- 8 degree angle. Feels like it will levitate off rather than fly.

Hopefully get in the air before the snow comes.--- Chris


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


Re: inspection

Chris Walterson
 

In Canada we need to fly 25 hrs at the same base. You have to land and takeoff there. No passengers unless it is crew. Can't have any major problems or mods otherwise back to square one.

 We need to do a climb test and then send in the paperwork. After that. Good to go.

   One other thing my inspector found was in my fuel flow report I had only done the gravity flow to the gascolator.

 On an injected engine you need to do the flow from the HP pump to the injectors [60gph] and also the return to the header

tank amount after the pressure relief .[40gph]

  My inspector is great and I may look into getting my rating.  I went on the runway a few times and it is similar to my little Q1 in the stance.

On the Dragonfly when you power up it takes a while for the wing to lift , then you get level and then you fly, but in the Q2 I feel close to level already. I think I sit at the recommended 7 -- 8 degree angle.  Feels like it will levitate off rather than fly.

Hopefully get  in the air before the snow comes.--- Chris


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


Re: inspection

Jay Scheevel
 

Sam’s numbers are the same for me. I have found that I slow down during downwind to below 100 lately (no tower). Gives me more time to think and stabilize my final.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 4:41 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection

 

Chris, I don't know if it's any help but here are my numbers, in mph.

 

Downwind: Fast enough to impress the tower.

Abeam the numbers:. 110

Base: 95

Final: 90

Across the numbers: 85

Touchdown: Don't be looking here, look out the window! (75).

 

Sam

 

Sam

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 4:58 PM Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:

   Had my final inspection a few weeks back. I was waiting for the
paperwork and then the inspector phoned.

On the Q200 the wing loading is higher than average.  Are the elevators
considered "flaps".

I have more than 13.75 lbs per square foot at gross and I would need a
High performance rating to fly it, unless, I can consider the

elevators flaps.  Can anyone give me a solution to please Transport Canada?

  And that is at the 1100 lbs in the manual. i would like to up gross to
1250 when testing is done.

   How have the heavier airplanes solved this question?---------- Thanks
------ Chris--


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






Re: inspection

Jim Patillo
 

I had a 25 hour fly off on my 0200A thru Oakland FISDO. 
Jim
N46JP
Q200P


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Cody <cody.craig1985@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 4:03:21 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection
 
I had informed my PAI about my intent to build a quickie 2 seater. He shared that he is an experimental enthusiast himself and would help me with my inspection, airworthiness paperwork requests etc. He also offered to be the one to come look at my plane when I hit that point. In talking to him, the quickie was almost a light sport aircraft here, with the exception of its high top speed rated with the O200 I was intending to install. The regulations Vern was mentioning, one of which is in place. (If you use a certified aircraft engine IE the O200...... you do not need to fly 40hrs for your cert.  It is reduced to 20-25 hrs. 


Re: inspection

 

I had informed my PAI about my intent to build a quickie 2 seater. He shared that he is an experimental enthusiast himself and would help me with my inspection, airworthiness paperwork requests etc. He also offered to be the one to come look at my plane when I hit that point. In talking to him, the quickie was almost a light sport aircraft here, with the exception of its high top speed rated with the O200 I was intending to install. The regulations Vern was mentioning, one of which is in place. (If you use a certified aircraft engine IE the O200...... you do not need to fly 40hrs for your cert.  It is reduced to 20-25 hrs. 


Re: inspection

Corbin
 

This reminds me of a conversation with Jim in that we were thinking I am landing too slow.  This could be causing my issues last year on my landings.  I was about 78mph across the numbers and slowing but looking outside and guessing my touch down speed was 68mph or so.  

The faster speed might help fly it onto the ground more.

Corbin

On Sep 29, 2021, at 5:41 PM, Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...> wrote:


Chris, I don't know if it's any help but here are my numbers, in mph.

Downwind: Fast enough to impress the tower.
Abeam the numbers:. 110
Base: 95
Final: 90
Across the numbers: 85
Touchdown: Don't be looking here, look out the window! (75).

Sam

Sam



On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 4:58 PM Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:
   Had my final inspection a few weeks back. I was waiting for the
paperwork and then the inspector phoned.

On the Q200 the wing loading is higher than average.  Are the elevators
considered "flaps".

I have more than 13.75 lbs per square foot at gross and I would need a
High performance rating to fly it, unless, I can consider the

elevators flaps.  Can anyone give me a solution to please Transport Canada?

  And that is at the 1100 lbs in the manual. i would like to up gross to
1250 when testing is done.

   How have the heavier airplanes solved this question?---------- Thanks
------ Chris--


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.








--

Corbin 
N121CG


Re: inspection

Sam Hoskins
 

Chris, I don't know if it's any help but here are my numbers, in mph.

Downwind: Fast enough to impress the tower.
Abeam the numbers:. 110
Base: 95
Final: 90
Across the numbers: 85
Touchdown: Don't be looking here, look out the window! (75).

Sam

Sam



On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 4:58 PM Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:
   Had my final inspection a few weeks back. I was waiting for the
paperwork and then the inspector phoned.

On the Q200 the wing loading is higher than average.  Are the elevators
considered "flaps".

I have more than 13.75 lbs per square foot at gross and I would need a
High performance rating to fly it, unless, I can consider the

elevators flaps.  Can anyone give me a solution to please Transport Canada?

  And that is at the 1100 lbs in the manual. i would like to up gross to
1250 when testing is done.

   How have the heavier airplanes solved this question?---------- Thanks
------ Chris--


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







Re: inspection

Frankenbird Vern
 

 It was mentioned in Kitplanes Magazine. The maze of US On-Line Airworthiness Certification was also addressed. 

 Your correct about the bureaucrats. One of the factors I do not like when working in an aircraft factory..along with giant
ego's from people that have no idea what actually building an airplane is like. I'm saying Experimental aviation is more "real" 
to me than my education occupation. 
 
  Boeing in Everett wants me to go back on Contract (I "retired" as one of the Lead M.E. on 747-8 program in September 2013 at age 56).  The background checks, flowing rivers of forms, and nickpicking starts before I even arrive. You'd think I would get used to this having started working in aviation factories when I was 18, but it's still a thorn in my foot. My German friends call the goovernment paper pushers chair farters.  The lable fits!   


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Brent Sherstan <brent.sherstan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 2:25 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection
 
You guys might all be right, and there may be valid arguments to attempting to persuade Transport Canada, but to me that seems like a lot more work and headache than just getting the High Performance Rating. 

Chris, you have to go through a fly off period anyway right? Well that will essentially be the same process as getting the High Performance Rating. You submit the Letter of Intent, ground and air training plans, then simply get comfortable in your airplane. Then you call the inspector to come watch you do three circuits and you're done.

I see the High Performance Rating as another small hurdle that YOU get to overcome (you do the work and you're done), versus attempting to change Transport Canada's mind and waiting for work that THEY have to do. We all know how government organizations work, who knows how long you could be waiting? If you're ready to fly and want to get on with it, I think the High Performance Rating is the fastest way forward. But that's just my take on it.

I'd be happy to send you everything I submitted, you could change all the pertinent details about you and your aircraft but the majority of the work should be relaitively similar. I didn't mind putting the air and ground training plan together because I viewed it as an oppourtunity to get to know the airplane better and make sure I've covered everything. But since you built your airplane, you don't exactly need the refresher. Send me your email and I'll forward everything I've got.

And to Vern's comment, I agree that the EAA Flight Test Manual is fantastic, I'm glad they're moving in that direction. Chris, if you haven't looked at it, I highly recommend it.

Brent


Re: inspection

Brent Sherstan
 

You guys might all be right, and there may be valid arguments to attempting to persuade Transport Canada, but to me that seems like a lot more work and headache than just getting the High Performance Rating. 

Chris, you have to go through a fly off period anyway right? Well that will essentially be the same process as getting the High Performance Rating. You submit the Letter of Intent, ground and air training plans, then simply get comfortable in your airplane. Then you call the inspector to come watch you do three circuits and you're done.

I see the High Performance Rating as another small hurdle that YOU get to overcome (you do the work and you're done), versus attempting to change Transport Canada's mind and waiting for work that THEY have to do. We all know how government organizations work, who knows how long you could be waiting? If you're ready to fly and want to get on with it, I think the High Performance Rating is the fastest way forward. But that's just my take on it.

I'd be happy to send you everything I submitted, you could change all the pertinent details about you and your aircraft but the majority of the work should be relaitively similar. I didn't mind putting the air and ground training plan together because I viewed it as an oppourtunity to get to know the airplane better and make sure I've covered everything. But since you built your airplane, you don't exactly need the refresher. Send me your email and I'll forward everything I've got.

And to Vern's comment, I agree that the EAA Flight Test Manual is fantastic, I'm glad they're moving in that direction. Chris, if you haven't looked at it, I highly recommend it.

Brent


Re: Changes to fuel system for fuel injection

Frankenbird Vern
 

 My own thoughts as well Phil.  Kiss..make and keep her simple. Aerodynamics will offer more at less cost and much less overall maintenance. Sure..pushing hp will gain, mostly in climb. It for sure will use more of that rather expensive benzine! What is the gain of going more complex? Is there much..honestly? Round and round the dog chases it's tail. Dunno..for me the $900 reliable ol Marvel carb is still working well on lots of GA aircraft. Gravity works it seems...has been for a while now. No outside loops planned in the Frankenbird.  It's mission is to go safe, far, and on less burn..and do so reasonably fast. Not a cargo hauler..   

 I have an LSA STOL and that mission aircraft is also based on simple, but of course selection of runways are vastly increased. It isn't going to arrive faster than even the slowest Q however! The TandemWing is not intentionally going into the challenge of sand bar hopping and postage stamp full slips into grass fields.

 Just me but knowing engines a little..granted..injection will offer a longer lifetime of components as long as it works. I fried a perfectly good very recently overhauled Subaru EA82 NA (I did the overhaul, and I am ASE certified) one cold January night going over Monarch Pass in Colorado simply because the ECM went full lean and I totally had ZERO indication. No temp rise, no knocking, no warning. Fried the rings on all four cylinders within 30 seconds time. Nearly zero compressions I later discovered. I had to coast down into Grand Junction in neutral.  What if that was a Q? Yu think "coasting" into town from the High Rockies might be possible? Maybe. Doubtful. 

 Phil is correct..there is no such thing guys as "flight safety". Risk Management..and even then we each are aware the flight might end in less than expected ways.             


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Phil Lankford via groups.io <britmcman@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:08 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Changes to fuel system for fuel injection
 
I don’t like the idea of fuel
Injection and absent of a header tank. The simple elegance of gravity feed fuel to a normally aspirated engine is not dependent of any electrical system. This airplane needs a hard surface runway like an airport. For all the minimal gains in efficiency of a fuel injected system there are just more systems needed to keep the fan going. We already have a virtual watermelon seed affixed to 100 hp good enough to outpace many high performance GA aircraft. Keep it simple with redundancies for spark and enjoy all the benefits of a fixed gear normally aspirated experience. You don’t want the fan to stop in this type aircraft. Consider the risk management equation.

Phil Lankford

> On Sep 27, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Corbin via groups.io <c_geiser@...> wrote:
>
> Same design as Chris except with the Airflow Performance fuel injection system.  I’m currently adding a backup battery to the two redundant fuel pumps feeding the engine. 
>
> Corbin
>
>> On Sep 27, 2021, at 6:17 PM, Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote:
>>
>>   Ryan-------------  I am using the SDS fuel injection system in mine.
>>
>> I have the standard Q fuel setup with the fuel being pumped to the header from the main and when the header is full it overflows and goes back to the main.  I am using the small  Faccett low pressure pump to fill the header. I  leave it on all the time. I've  left the LP pump on all the time in my other airplane and it has worked for 30 years. This way you don't need to monitor the header tank level all the time.
>>
>> From the header it flow to the high pressure pump and then to the injectors. I have two pumps in parallel.  There is a pressure relief at the end of the injector circuit that keeps the pressure steady.
>>
>> Mine is the stock Subaru unit. From the relief it then flows back into the header. You need to install another fitting in the header for the return line ,but that is it.
>>
>> I think the SDS site has some diagrams and info. They have a video on an 0200 continental injected.
>>
>> take care-------------  Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Corbin
> N121CG
>
>
>
>
>







Re: inspection

Rick Hole
 

I am thinking what the elevator, say on the more commonly known Cessna, Pipers, etc., do. They are on the tail, not the wing, and their function it to change the angle of attack of the wing.
The flaps are mounted on the wing itself and function to change the chord of the wing, modifying its lift and improving the wing loading.
The elevator on Velocities are on the canard and function much like the other airplanes, though in the opposite direction being forward of the main wing.
I lean toward the argument that tandem wings technically have only flaps, not elevators.
Getting the high performance rating in the US is very easy. Or was at least for me. It is a CFI sign-off. ATC is a different "bird" entirely.


Rick Hole


Re: inspection

Jay Scheevel
 

If flapperons qualify as flaps, then flappervators should also. I essentially use my elevator trim as flaps when setting up for landing. I would be curious to see what their regulatory response is, if you propose that elevators are also flaps.

Cheers,
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:48 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection

Brent----------- If I use the fuselage in my calculations, along with my extended wing and canard I am a bit under the high performance rating. If they don't accept this, I would think I would be in line for a good fine. It seems that I have 900 hrs in high performance airplanes over the last thirty years, and Transport Canada certified both planes.

It seemed to me, at the time, transport Canada recognized the elevators as flaps.

My dragonfly will stall slower than a 150 Cessna, but is considered too hot to handle.

I think I am okay using the fuselage. I'll keep you
posted.------------- Chris


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


Re: inspection

Frankenbird Vern
 

 Brent...and others here...in the works is a change to the required 40 hour Phase 1 flight testing process within the States. Not sure where the status is now, but the EAA Flight Test Manual is the basis for the newly proposed acceptance method. I believe Canada and the USA are actually making good changes in this direction so both Nations are following mostly the same methodologies. Sales on either side of the border would definitely be streamlined due to the similarities. 

 Having been involved personally in Certifications of Commonwealth Nations aircraft built in the USA (since the mid 70's) I had early lessons in dramatic requirement differences. European builds as well (I was with Spirit Aerosystems as supplier to both Airbus and Boeing at the time). Learjets built for Commonwealth Nations had several different changes in accepted materials we had to be careful to use correctly. That was my first "paid" aviation job in 1975. Specialized paperwork as well. 

I wonder if Chris could use the belly board installation, which is a drag device intended to steepen the decent angle to good use in the Canadian Cert? Technically not a lift device. It might be worth asking your regulators. It is an approved addition to the airframe..more than one have them in use now.

Vern      


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:10 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection
 

Great summary, Brent. Thanks for giving such a detailed analysis for Chris to chew over. I did not know that there was such an issue in Canada. In any case, it sounds like you are doing things in a very methodical and safe way and it is good to know that you are there and have been lurking for a while on this group. Keep up the good work and send us a photo of your plane.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brent Sherstan
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:50 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] inspection

 

Hi Chris, I have a Q2 in Calgary and I am currently going through the process to get a High Performance Rating. The wing loading for a flapless configuration is the issue - meaning that Transport Canada considers the high approach speed a concern.

Jay's definition of flaps on the canard is worth a shot but it didn't work for me, I think the inspector would realize very quickly that the devices moving on the canard are the elevators. I suspect that the High Performance Rating did not exist when most of the Q2s in Canada were constructed thirty years ago, so all those builders didn't have to worry about it. But since you've just built yours and need to go through the whole paperwork process, there's no way around it. I know some guys that bought a Q2 in Canada and just never bothered with the rating. They fly it as they wish and would likely only get caught at a random ramp check. I decided to go through with the process so I can travel to the States and not worry about paperwork snags ruining my trip.

The High Performance Rating process is not very difficult, that being said, I have heard Transport Canada policy tends to change depending on who you're dealing with in the organization (not specifically about High Performance Ratings, just in general). The Q2 is listed in the CARS, Standard 421, Appendix A, so they definitely know about it. What you need for a High Performance Rating is 200 hours on aeroplanes, to have completed the appropriate ground training, and to have completed a qualifying flight under Transport Canada supervision. As there is no organization that offers a ground training syllabus on the Q2, I was able to make my own. Specifically, in order to be ready for the qualifying flight, here is what I had to put together:

1) A letter of intent (who is requesting the training, what type of training is being requested, how will the training be conductred, etc.)
2) Description of Aircraft (and why it's considered high performance)
3) Training profile (ground training plan that completely describes every system of the aircraft in detail, and an air training plan)

When that is all complete, I contact him and arrange the qualifying flight. He will come to my airport and watch me do three circuits from the ground (they're not getting in that questionable machine with you... haha). He will be on the radio and instruct various things in the circuits as well as emergencies.

I'm a former military helicopter pilot and I actually bought the Q2 before I even had my civilian licenses, so I tailored my air training plan specifically to learning tailwheel aircraft. Also, I've had the Q2 for 5 years now and have completely rebuilt the engine, added significant avionics, and fixed some airframe issues. So, I'm taking it slow and almost treating it as a new aircraft. I bought the EAA Flight Test Manual. I made working through that as part of my air training plan and he was happy with it. Basically, I am restricted to my airport and practise area, and when I work through the EAA Flight Test Manual and finally feel comfortable, then he will come check me out and that will be it. I wanted to take it slow and steady with this airplane anyway so this High Performance Rating didn't really add any burden.

Anyway, I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

I'd also like to say hello to everyone else on the list. I've had the Q2 for 5 years now and have been lurking on the site ever since. I wanted to introduce myself after I've been flying more seriously but that seems to have been more elusive that I imagined. I've flown 4 hours total and have had several teething issues with the engine, but I think I've solved the issues and hope to be flying regularly moving forward. You guys have a great group!

Brent Sherstan


Re: inspection

Chris Walterson
 

Brent-----------  If I use the fuselage in my calculations, along with my extended wing and canard I am a bit under the high performance rating.  If they don't accept this, I would think I would be in line for a good fine.  It seems that I have 900 hrs in high performance airplanes over the last thirty years, and Transport Canada certified both planes.

It seemed to me, at the time, transport Canada recognized the elevators as flaps.

 My dragonfly will stall slower than a 150 Cessna, but is considered too hot to handle.

 I think I am okay using the fuselage.  I'll keep you posted.-------------  Chris


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

2221 - 2240 of 55068