Date   

Re: Interested in purchasing Quickie Q2

Christopher
 

Hi Jay, Thank you for the information about the quickies in Livermore.

I am not sure exactly what you would like to know about my flying experience but I will give a quick summary. I have about 250 hours of flying time. I have 50 hours of tailwheel time and have flown complex and high power airplanes. I am also instrument rated.


Re: Interested in purchasing Quickie Q2

Jay Scheevel
 

What is your name and flight background? Your background as a pilot is a very important detail that people on this list need to know in order to offer useful advice. 
Alan Thayer is based at LVK and has a Q2 with a Jabiru engine that is not finished and has not flown. Alan mostly flies his long-ez. Jim Patillo has a 1000+ hour Q200 based in auburn but commutes to LVK almost weekly. I think he still has a hangar at LVK that he keeps his plane in while in town, but I will let him speak for himself. 

Cheers,
Jay Tri-Q2 N8WQ


On Oct 11, 2021, at 7:49 PM, ca_chris <Cwnilsenca@...> wrote:

I came across a Quickie Q2 for sale on craigslist at Camarillo. Here is the link https://santabarbara.craigslist.org/avo/d/camarillo-q2-experimental-rutan-quickie/7386958812.html The plane was completed a few years ago but has never flown due to medical issues with the owner. It does have a valid airworthiness and registration. It looks like a great way to get into a Quickie. What concerns should I have about a plane like this?

On another note, I am based in Livermore at LVK. Does anyone have a Q2/Q200 nearby that I could talk to/look at their airplane?

Thank you


Re: Quickie Q2 parts for sale

Stan Susman <stanpfa@...>
 

fuselage, canopy glass, cowl, bulkheads in CA 1000.00


Re: Vortex Generators (VGs) on the GU Canard

Brent Sherstan
 

That’s some great info Michael, thank you. The original instructions were very specific, I wonder why they specified placing the VG’s at two different angles? Maybe each set would be more effective at a slightly different airspeed? I don’t recall seeing that on any other aircraft.

It appears that my somewhat aft-looking VG’s might actually be fairly close to the placement as prescribed by QAC, whether that is actually the optimum placing anymore is the question.

Brent 


Interested in purchasing Quickie Q2

Christopher
 

I came across a Quickie Q2 for sale on craigslist at Camarillo. Here is the link https://santabarbara.craigslist.org/avo/d/camarillo-q2-experimental-rutan-quickie/7386958812.html The plane was completed a few years ago but has never flown due to medical issues with the owner. It does have a valid airworthiness and registration. It looks like a great way to get into a Quickie. What concerns should I have about a plane like this?

On another note, I am based in Livermore at LVK. Does anyone have a Q2/Q200 nearby that I could talk to/look at their airplane?

Thank you


Vortex Generators (VGs) on the GU Canard

Michael Dunning
 


Re: Quickie Q1 - Canard

Jay Scheevel
 

That’s interesting David. I never knew that about the Q1. The Q2 has the two outboard edges of the center section vertical.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of David J. Gall
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 1:42 AM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Quickie Q1 - Canard

 

Eugen,

 

I think you still do not have the centersection block correct. It’s hard to tell from SolidWorks screen shots without perspective turned on.

 

In front view the block should be a trapezoidal shape, 20” span on the top surface and 18.6” span on the bottom surface. In side and top views the block should be rectangular.

 

David 



On Oct 8, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Eugen Pilarski <interbus@...> wrote:

David,

 

thanks for that detail information end explain the interrelations. 

 

So the center section foam unit for the Canard is 20“ to 18 1/2“ (14“+ 4 1/2“) with the 0.7“ slope and has no elevator slots cores, because is not needed internal of fuselage. Please find a sketch in the attachment.

 

Best regards

 

Eugen 



Am 04.10.2021 um 02:22 schrieb David J. Gall <David@...>:

 

Eugen,

 

Additional to my last note, see page 10-5. The aft “elevator slot cores” are also removed along the line 33-F-G-H-I-32 for the remainder of the canard beyond the center section, but only AFTER laying up the elevator slots with one BID at plus/minus 45°. This yields a 78” long piece that will be re-attached to the aft edge of the canard after the canard is glassed. Glassing the canard before reattaching this piece creates a shear web from tip to tip just ahead of the trailing edge (hinge line) of the canard. Re-attaching the “elevator slot cores” establishes the aerodynamic fairing of the canard to the elevators outboard of the fuselage, but is not needed internal to the fuselage.

 

 

-David

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 1:15 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Quickie Q1 - Canard

 

Hello Q-Groupe,

we are just about to cut the canard out of the foam. What is not clear to me at the moment is why the separation of the rear segments in the middle segment has to take place along line 33-F-G-H-32? For the part of the middle segment where it is connected to the fuselage it is clear, but beyond that? Attached is an excerpt.  The page in the Plans ist 5 - 2. 

 

Is it correct that the width of the middle segment is 42"? 

Best regards

Eugen 


<image001.png><image002.png>

<Bildschirmfoto 2021-10-08 um 21.33.31.png>


Re: Quickie Q1 - Canard

David J. Gall
 

Eugen,

I think you still do not have the centersection block correct. It’s hard to tell from SolidWorks screen shots without perspective turned on.

In front view the block should be a trapezoidal shape, 20” span on the top surface and 18.6” span on the bottom surface. In side and top views the block should be rectangular.

David 

On Oct 8, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Eugen Pilarski <interbus@...> wrote:

David,

thanks for that detail information end explain the interrelations. 

So the center section foam unit for the Canard is 20“ to 18 1/2“ (14“+ 4 1/2“) with the 0.7“ slope and has no elevator slots cores, because is not needed internal of fuselage. Please find a sketch in the attachment.

Best regards

Eugen 

Am 04.10.2021 um 02:22 schrieb David J. Gall <David@...>:

Eugen,
 
Additional to my last note, see page 10-5. The aft “elevator slot cores” are also removed along the line 33-F-G-H-I-32 for the remainder of the canard beyond the center section, but only AFTER laying up the elevator slots with one BID at plus/minus 45°. This yields a 78” long piece that will be re-attached to the aft edge of the canard after the canard is glassed. Glassing the canard before reattaching this piece creates a shear web from tip to tip just ahead of the trailing edge (hinge line) of the canard. Re-attaching the “elevator slot cores” establishes the aerodynamic fairing of the canard to the elevators outboard of the fuselage, but is not needed internal to the fuselage.
 
 
-David
 
 
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 1:15 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Quickie Q1 - Canard
 

Hello Q-Groupe,

we are just about to cut the canard out of the foam. What is not clear to me at the moment is why the separation of the rear segments in the middle segment has to take place along line 33-F-G-H-32? For the part of the middle segment where it is connected to the fuselage it is clear, but beyond that? Attached is an excerpt.  The page in the Plans ist 5 - 2. 
 
Is it correct that the width of the middle segment is 42"? 

Best regards

Eugen 

<image001.png><image002.png>

<Bildschirmfoto 2021-10-08 um 21.33.31.png>


Re: Firewall with no engine

Mike Dwyer
 

Your firewall looks great.  In my hangar I keep a "come along" attached to an overhead beam.  With that I can have the engine off the Q200 in about 30 min.  
Fly Safe,
Mike Dwyer Q200

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021, 12:54 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

I am into my annual this month. I have set up my engine so that it takes about 1 hour to remove and same to put it back on. I have removed it for 2 of my 3 annuals so far. I generally ask myself why I am doing this as I am removing it, but once I get it off, I feel much better about it, because I can get a really good look at everything on the back of the engine, thus a thorough inspection.

 

For some of you that saw my plane with the engine in place, here is what the firewall looks like without the engine.

 

Cheers,

Jay  Tri-Q2 N8WQ 190 hours.


Re: Quickie Q1 - Canard

Eugen Pilarski
 

David,

thanks for that detail information end explain the interrelations. 

So the center section foam unit for the Canard is 20“ to 18 1/2“ (14“+ 4 1/2“) with the 0.7“ slope and has no elevator slots cores, because is not needed internal of fuselage. Please find a sketch in the attachment.

Best regards

Eugen 

Am 04.10.2021 um 02:22 schrieb David J. Gall <David@...>:

Eugen,
 
Additional to my last note, see page 10-5. The aft “elevator slot cores” are also removed along the line 33-F-G-H-I-32 for the remainder of the canard beyond the center section, but only AFTER laying up the elevator slots with one BID at plus/minus 45°. This yields a 78” long piece that will be re-attached to the aft edge of the canard after the canard is glassed. Glassing the canard before reattaching this piece creates a shear web from tip to tip just ahead of the trailing edge (hinge line) of the canard. Re-attaching the “elevator slot cores” establishes the aerodynamic fairing of the canard to the elevators outboard of the fuselage, but is not needed internal to the fuselage.
 
 
-David
 
 
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Eugen Pilarski
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 1:15 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Quickie Q1 - Canard
 

Hello Q-Groupe,

we are just about to cut the canard out of the foam. What is not clear to me at the moment is why the separation of the rear segments in the middle segment has to take place along line 33-F-G-H-32? For the part of the middle segment where it is connected to the fuselage it is clear, but beyond that? Attached is an excerpt.  The page in the Plans ist 5 - 2. 
 
Is it correct that the width of the middle segment is 42"? 

Best regards

Eugen 

<image001.png><image002.png>


Re: Commemorative photo

Jay Scheevel
 

You guessed right, Keith. We were all lined up on the grass between the primary taxiway and 18/36. Was cool to be “inside the fence” as you are well aware since you flew your beautiful little bird in the show a few years ago.

Cheers,
Jay


On Oct 8, 2021, at 6:46 AM, Keith Welsh <kw544@...> wrote:


That IS a very nice photo of a should have at least been a Lindy winner.
Just curious where the photo was taken.  Looks like where they were lining up the participants for the homebuilt review.


---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Jay Scheevel" <jay@...>
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Commemorative photo
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:39:03 -0600

Just got a nice note from EAA Airventure 2021 and a photo. Watch out Kyle Franklin, here I come!  Get ‘em flying guys, you won’t regret it.

 

http://n8wq.scheevel.com/PhotoAlbumsPro/EAA_Airventure/2021/N8WQ_2021.JPG

 

Cheers,

Jay




Re: Commemorative photo

 

That IS a very nice photo of a should have at least been a Lindy winner.
Just curious where the photo was taken.  Looks like where they were lining up the participants for the homebuilt review.


---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Jay Scheevel" <jay@...>
To: <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Commemorative photo
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:39:03 -0600

Just got a nice note from EAA Airventure 2021 and a photo. Watch out Kyle Franklin, here I come!  Get ‘em flying guys, you won’t regret it.

 

http://n8wq.scheevel.com/PhotoAlbumsPro/EAA_Airventure/2021/N8WQ_2021.JPG

 

Cheers,

Jay




Re: Commemorative photo

Jay Scheevel
 

 

Thanks Bruce!

 

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bruce Crain
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 2:44 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Commemorative photo

 

That’s great!  Beautiful TriQ 200!  I still think you should have been Grand Champion!

Bruce



On Oct 7, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:



Just got a nice note from EAA Airventure 2021 and a photo. Watch out Kyle Franklin, here I come!  Get ‘em flying guys, you won’t regret it.

 

http://n8wq.scheevel.com/PhotoAlbumsPro/EAA_Airventure/2021/N8WQ_2021.JPG

 

Cheers,

Jay

 


Re: Commemorative photo

Bruce Crain
 

That’s great!  Beautiful TriQ 200!  I still think you should have been Grand Champion!
Bruce


On Oct 7, 2021, at 2:39 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:



Just got a nice note from EAA Airventure 2021 and a photo. Watch out Kyle Franklin, here I come!  Get ‘em flying guys, you won’t regret it.

 

http://n8wq.scheevel.com/PhotoAlbumsPro/EAA_Airventure/2021/N8WQ_2021.JPG

 

Cheers,

Jay




Commemorative photo

Jay Scheevel
 

Just got a nice note from EAA Airventure 2021 and a photo. Watch out Kyle Franklin, here I come!  Get ‘em flying guys, you won’t regret it.

 

http://n8wq.scheevel.com/PhotoAlbumsPro/EAA_Airventure/2021/N8WQ_2021.JPG

 

Cheers,

Jay


Re: Some Qs

Jay Scheevel
 

That plate is either 3/32 or 1/8”, but I am not at the airport now, so cannot measure it. The material is 4130 steel and is welded  along its length to the stick tube. It is very strong once it is welded in place so the thickness, if close to 3/32 is going to work fine.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:16 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Some Qs

 

Thanks Jay.

So finally got to a point today where I had elevator control rods ready.
It appears if they are fitted either side of the stick tube it creates excessive elevator movement when you roll… I think the design means that the elevators will move when the stick is moved for roll, but my elevator arms are moving about 10mm.

Having the plate at the front of the stick and thus the two rods closer together helps reduce this, I think… So will get that fitted.

Do you know how thick the plate is? I have your photos for the 2D plan, but not the thickness.


Re: Some Qs

Tim
 

Thanks Jay.

So finally got to a point today where I had elevator control rods ready.
It appears if they are fitted either side of the stick tube it creates excessive elevator movement when you roll… I think the design means that the elevators will move when the stick is moved for roll, but my elevator arms are moving about 10mm.

Having the plate at the front of the stick and thus the two rods closer together helps reduce this, I think… So will get that fitted.

Do you know how thick the plate is? I have your photos for the 2D plan, but not the thickness.


Re: Firewall with no engine

Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks Jon,

 

I had seen this video previously and it has some good advice, so I watched it again. I have two of Mike Busch’s books and have absorbed them, as well as most of John Schwanner’s Engine maintenance material. All very good stuff. It is all focused on LyCon engines as would be expected given the number of those operating and the tendency of homebuilders with odd engines to do their own maintenance.

 

I have more or less the same philosophy as you have with respect to treating my Jabiru as an alternative engine. I put in 1/4 turn fasteners on the cowl at the start, and my engine can be removed by unplugging everything at the firewall and never having to put a wrench on the backside of the firewall.

 

I consider my plane and engine combination to be a prototype, so I treat it that way. So far, my ad hoc engineering has been reliable, but the best way to keep it that way is to look things over very carefully. I have almost 200 hours on it so far, so I am getting close to entering the “goldilocks zone” very soon. I will probably taper off on the invasive inspections as time goes by, but I like being my own worst critic and that makes me err on the tedious side of inspections.

 

Thanks for your carefully thought out note and for sharing your experience over the years.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jon Finley
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:09 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Firewall with no engine

 

Mike Busch has put a really good video/article together regarding 'maintenance minimalism' or 'maintenance-induced failures'. I think it's worth watching. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHwtkZNSlPA

I've also built/flown behind several alternative/auto engines and felt that it was mandatory to keep a VERY close eye on them. I wore out MANY cowling nutplates/screws pulling that thing off after nearly every flight to check things (before I could afford quarter-turn fasteners).  In this scenario many items under the cowling (custom brackets, mounts, etc.) have zero 'fleet hours' on them - that's what the builder is accruing.  For me, this 'problem' was amplified since I was a hack.  At one point, I believed that if an item survived 20-30 hours it was going to last forever. Then I learned about how metal fatigues and started thinking I needed to watch things CLOSER the more hours I put on them.  Doh!!! :-)

So, IMO, there are some different scenarios that don't fit into the same mold. No doubt that finding a balance is the trick.

Now that I fly a Lycoming, I feel a bit guilty that I only remove the cowling every 50-75 hours (for an oil change). :-)

Jon Finley
Somewhere in the Southwest flying an RV-4


Re: Firewall with no engine

Jon Finley
 

Mike Busch has put a really good video/article together regarding 'maintenance minimalism' or 'maintenance-induced failures'. I think it's worth watching. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHwtkZNSlPA

I've also built/flown behind several alternative/auto engines and felt that it was mandatory to keep a VERY close eye on them. I wore out MANY cowling nutplates/screws pulling that thing off after nearly every flight to check things (before I could afford quarter-turn fasteners).  In this scenario many items under the cowling (custom brackets, mounts, etc.) have zero 'fleet hours' on them - that's what the builder is accruing.  For me, this 'problem' was amplified since I was a hack.  At one point, I believed that if an item survived 20-30 hours it was going to last forever. Then I learned about how metal fatigues and started thinking I needed to watch things CLOSER the more hours I put on them.  Doh!!! :-)

So, IMO, there are some different scenarios that don't fit into the same mold. No doubt that finding a balance is the trick.

Now that I fly a Lycoming, I feel a bit guilty that I only remove the cowling every 50-75 hours (for an oil change). :-)

Jon Finley
Somewhere in the Southwest flying an RV-4


Re: Firewall with no engine

Jerry Marstall
 

Very nice!


On Tue, Oct 5, 2021, 3:18 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

I appreciate that point of view, Jim. I probably will do this less frequently once I know how things are wearing (like next year). When I do pull the engine, I take it off with the engine mount attached. All of the wiring to the engine remains intact and everything unplugs from the firewall. This is why it doesn’t take me long to remove and remount it. For now I am content with having a good look at things. For example, some things are impossible to see with the engine attached, such as the condition of rotor and distributor electrodes. Just too tight back there. A couple of hours of additional time on the annual is not a big commitment to be thorough.

 

Sometime, I hope you will get to see my installation. Perhaps I will make a trip your direction this fall.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jim Patillo
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:03 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Firewall with no engine

 

Jay,

 

I continually monitor everything visually and check  the necessary torques and clearances as required but rarely have to pull the engine. You don’t pull your car engine every time you tune it .

 

Since you don’t have a lot of time on your engine, maybe you should pull it this time, check everything and skip removal on the next annual. It’s just your ass in the seat and you know about that stuff. 

 

Make it a Great  Day. 

 

Jim

N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:43:14 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Firewall with no engine

 

Good point, Charlie. But I am not doing any fixing, just looking thoroughly and doing the necessary wear checking. My installation is a one-off, so I treat it like a prototype with respect to inspections.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of One Sky Dog via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:13 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Firewall with no engine

 

Learned in England classified for 30 years, airlines learned again in the 70’s.

 

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

 

 

But if it is a 30 year old oil line replace it!

 

Charlie





 

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 9:54 AM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

I am into my annual this month. I have set up my engine so that it takes about 1 hour to remove and same to put it back on. I have removed it for 2 of my 3 annuals so far. I generally ask myself why I am doing this as I am removing it, but once I get it off, I feel much better about it, because I can get a really good look at everything on the back of the engine, thus a thorough inspection.

 

For some of you that saw my plane with the engine in place, here is what the firewall looks like without the engine.

 

Cheers,

Jay  Tri-Q2 N8WQ 190 hours.

2541 - 2560 of 55457