Date   

Re: Flight report

Jay Scheevel
 

I like that Kevin…”no broken or missing parts” Glad you got your first in before the en of February.

Cheers,
Jay 


On Feb 27, 2022, at 6:08 PM, Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:


 It is good news you didn't get stuck by an Arrow!! How the hell does he know "you have enough room?"  Maybe he'd say the same thing if you were in the Concorde.  Probably waits at a corner until a Semi is 20 feet away at 60mph and then pulls in front of the truck.      

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 6:57 PM
To: Q List <Q-List@groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Flight report
 
Well. After all of my pissing and moaning for weeks now, I finally got my first flight of the year (in my Q) completed.
Nice day, compared to what we have been experiencing, light and variable winds, clear skies, 33°F on the ramp.
I had not flown my Q since early October. Followed by my condition inspection completed in November.

With that said I decided after run up, I would make a couple of fast taxi’s to see WOT and evaluate the power, smoothness of the engine, carb heat at WOT.
All was good. TO on 29 was smooth. Climb at 110MPH indicated yielded about 1000’ FPM climb.
Left the pattern, just flew around and enjoyed the recreation side of homebuilding!
1.4 hours later I was on the ground with a re-usable plane.

On base to final, a Piper Arrow decided that I needed some excitement, and said “Im going to get out of your way and depart.
I said “don’t” but then said I would go around. He said “you have plenty of room” as I was turning on final, and he was just getting a roll started. Went around in a right pattern, so I would not overfly him. Made a big circle and re-entered DW. Landing was acceptable.
No broken or missing parts.

The experience beats the hell out of whining about not flying!

As Jay said earlier, Get um dun. That too beats the hell out of building!




Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B    571hrs
Luana, IA.









Re: Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Mike,

Here’s the deal on wing mounting angles. Unlike the current dogma about the canard stalling first, the canard in the Q configuration never really achieves a full stall. The full stall angle is something like 13-14 degrees  AOA for the LS1 at the wing root. What happens before it gets to this angle is that the main wing “overpowers” the canard wrt pitch moment and forces the angle of attack lower. This is the pitch bunk oscillation.

This is why the pitch buck is a sort of nodding action instead of something more violent. 

Why is this the case? In intermediate angles of attack the angle versus lift curve is linear, so the ratio of lift contribution between canard and MW is constant for a given elevator deflection over a range of AOA’s. At higher angles of attack and higher elevator deflection, the slope of the lift curve for the canard decreases progressively while the MW lift curve remains linear. The Q is set up so that the MW is still in the linear portion of the lift curve when the canard enters the reduced slope portion (at about 8-9 degrees). At this angle the canard is still not close to stall.  Because the MW is picking up lift vs angle at a higher rate, the MW starts to win the pitch moment battle and it forces a lower angle of attack on the entire plane.  This is the pitch buck. Nothing is fully stalled.  If the canard were fully stalled, it would feel like a true stall and like it wants to depart into a spin.

I mounted my MW at a lower angle relative to the canard so my canard gets closer to stall and is more like 10-11 degrees at pitch buck. My pitch buck is more “exciting”, but this is NOT because the MW is closer to stall, but because the canard is closer to stall.  

So the design of the relative angle of the canard in the tandem wing configuration is intended to match the lift ratios in a way to make sure the canard reaches the non-linear portion of the lift curve first.

Accelerated stalls are another animal and are to be avoided in the Q.

Cheers,
Jay


On Feb 27, 2022, at 5:15 PM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


With a lower angle of attack on the canard, wouldn't that reduce the margin of having the canard stall prior to the main wing?
I'd still like to see a better sparrow strainer design.  Move it into the airstream and make it operate in a "not stalled" condition so it could be smaller...
Mike Dwyer Q200
Great work Jay!

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


On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 6:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Let me preface this with the statement that the current design of sparrow strainers works. You should not deviate from that design. The following is purely theoretical at this point and is not flight proven.

 

Here are my observations so far.

At 2 degress AOA, which is about where the Q2 is at high speed cruise, the standard LS! Airfoil produces a Cl of 0.461 and Cd of 0.0191 as shown below

In order to reverse the effect of the elevator deflecting upward in flight, sparrow strainers are installed. As a result, the span that contains the sparrow strainers ends up with an overall NEGATIVE lift coefficient, Cl of -0.333 and almost double the drag of the clean LS1: a Cd of 0.0317  (shown below). The extreme pressure field of the sparrow strainer, because of its high angle relative to the streamlines, actually kills the lift of the LS1 airfoil over the length of span that is occupied by the sparrow strainer. The result is a negative lift coefficient over that portion of the span. So roughly 1/8 of the total canard span (the portion of the span with the sparrow strainer installed)  is actually providing negative lift at an AOA of 2 degrees, and is creating lots more drag than it would if there was no sparrow strainer present.

 

The catch 22 is that we know the sparrow strainer is necessary for the LS1 profile, as we can demonstrate as follows:

 

If the sparrow strainer is omitted and no stick force is applied (hands off), the elevator portion of the canard will tend to reflex up in flight. But, how much would it reflex up? 

 

Well, it looks like it would reflex up 20 degrees before the pressure field is in equilibrium on top and bottom of the elevator. This would result in the overall “hands off” configuration having a negative Cl = -0.420 over the entire span occupied by the elevator. This would result in a severe “tuck”.

 

If the elevator portion of the LS1 is redesigned so as to not deflect up or down in flight and to be in trail throughout most of the AOA range, then the a result is shown below. This design should acheive a “hands off” Cl of 0.434 (slightly less than the bare LS1 of 0.461) and a Cd is 0.0198, very slightly higher than the bare LS1. No stick force or sparrow strainer would be required for this elevator profile if it performs as modeled, so the draggy and negative lift portion of the span would not be nescessary.

 

But what about a different airfoil, such as the the  Roncz 1145MS airfoil? R1145MS would result in the same Cl as the modified-elevator LS airfoil, but at a lower Cd of 0.01393. As shown below.

However, the Ronz airfoil, if fitted with an articulated elevator in the Q2 configuration, would tend to see the elevator deflect downward before achieving aerodynamic balance with no springs, stick force or sparrow strainer applied. Equilibrium would be achieved with the elevator deflected downward approximately 2 degrees as shown below. This deflection results in a higher Cl and would require that the overall airfoil be installed 1 degree nose down to the LS1 to perform aerodynamically similar to the LS1 equipped Q2. Doing so, would  yield a Cl of 0.458 and Cd of 0.01372 at an AOA of 2 degrees.

 

So we would mount the Roncz airfoil 1 degree lower angle. If we were to do this on a Q2, then the Cl would be similar to the LS1 airfoil, but the drag would be about 30% lower than the LS1: Cd 0.014 at and AOA of 2 degrees.

 

Note that none of these models include the effect of a turbulent stall bubble on the trailing edge of the elevator, so the numbers would be slightly different on a flying aircraft.

 

In summary, we see that the Roncz 1145MS airfoil would probably have been a better choice than the LS1 for a Q2, but it may not have been available at the time the decision of QAC was to go with the LS1. We can also see that the sparrow strainer solves the problem of preventing the LS1 elevator floating up in flight, but at a great drag cost and a reduction in overall canard lift over the span to which the sparrow strainer is applied (roughly 1/8 of the total span of the canard) with the 11.5” sparrow strainer, higher if using the 17.5’ sparrow strainer).

 

As shown above, it is possible to design a more benign elevator shape for the existing LS1 canard that will solve the problem of the elevator floating up in flight without the need for a sparrow strainer, but this solution is not as efficient with respect to drag as would be use of an entirely new airfoil as was done by John Roncz for the Long EZ.

 

This is my analysis so far. I will continue to work on this as time permits.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Re: Flight report

Frankenbird Vern
 

 It is good news you didn't get stuck by an Arrow!! How the hell does he know "you have enough room?"  Maybe he'd say the same thing if you were in the Concorde.  Probably waits at a corner until a Semi is 20 feet away at 60mph and then pulls in front of the truck.      


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 6:57 PM
To: Q List <Q-List@groups.io>
Subject: [Q-List] Flight report
 
Well. After all of my pissing and moaning for weeks now, I finally got my first flight of the year (in my Q) completed.
Nice day, compared to what we have been experiencing, light and variable winds, clear skies, 33°F on the ramp.
I had not flown my Q since early October. Followed by my condition inspection completed in November.

With that said I decided after run up, I would make a couple of fast taxi’s to see WOT and evaluate the power, smoothness of the engine, carb heat at WOT.
All was good. TO on 29 was smooth. Climb at 110MPH indicated yielded about 1000’ FPM climb.
Left the pattern, just flew around and enjoyed the recreation side of homebuilding!
1.4 hours later I was on the ground with a re-usable plane.

On base to final, a Piper Arrow decided that I needed some excitement, and said “Im going to get out of your way and depart.
I said “don’t” but then said I would go around. He said “you have plenty of room” as I was turning on final, and he was just getting a roll started. Went around in a right pattern, so I would not overfly him. Made a big circle and re-entered DW. Landing was acceptable.
No broken or missing parts.

The experience beats the hell out of whining about not flying!

As Jay said earlier, Get um dun. That too beats the hell out of building!




Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B    571hrs
Luana, IA.









Re: Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)

Frankenbird Vern
 

 Good point, Mike. And one best avoided!  

Decalage revision, but that is with the R1145MS. Don't know yet with your elevator, Jay. The Frankenbirds canard is bolted in as is the wing, because it is Dragonfly so jus saying there is room for adjustment.. +/- perhaps 2 degrees.  So that means I can "sneek" up on the numbers and not having to do structural workovers. Gap seals and fairing work..minor compared to bonded in surfaces.     

 I suspect your correct about the timing John (Roncz) was working with. Cozy also used the 1145MS..I owned planes set #34
sold to me by Nat and Shirley Puffer. 

 Starships Canard was also the R1145MS airfoil, not a big deal to build it, but the main wing tooling was a major challenge.
 Not like the Long Eze which Beech had one used to train our test pilots.  I seem to remember on Starship there were 9 or 10 transitions 
in profile on the way to the tipsails.  We thought John had been on some serious drugs once the design was released to us. 

Vern     


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 6:15 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)
 
With a lower angle of attack on the canard, wouldn't that reduce the margin of having the canard stall prior to the main wing?
I'd still like to see a better sparrow strainer design.  Move it into the airstream and make it operate in a "not stalled" condition so it could be smaller...
Mike Dwyer Q200
Great work Jay!

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


On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 6:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Let me preface this with the statement that the current design of sparrow strainers works. You should not deviate from that design. The following is purely theoretical at this point and is not flight proven.

 

Here are my observations so far.

At 2 degress AOA, which is about where the Q2 is at high speed cruise, the standard LS! Airfoil produces a Cl of 0.461 and Cd of 0.0191 as shown below

In order to reverse the effect of the elevator deflecting upward in flight, sparrow strainers are installed. As a result, the span that contains the sparrow strainers ends up with an overall NEGATIVE lift coefficient, Cl of -0.333 and almost double the drag of the clean LS1: a Cd of 0.0317  (shown below). The extreme pressure field of the sparrow strainer, because of its high angle relative to the streamlines, actually kills the lift of the LS1 airfoil over the length of span that is occupied by the sparrow strainer. The result is a negative lift coefficient over that portion of the span. So roughly 1/8 of the total canard span (the portion of the span with the sparrow strainer installed)  is actually providing negative lift at an AOA of 2 degrees, and is creating lots more drag than it would if there was no sparrow strainer present.

 

The catch 22 is that we know the sparrow strainer is necessary for the LS1 profile, as we can demonstrate as follows:

 

If the sparrow strainer is omitted and no stick force is applied (hands off), the elevator portion of the canard will tend to reflex up in flight. But, how much would it reflex up? 

 

Well, it looks like it would reflex up 20 degrees before the pressure field is in equilibrium on top and bottom of the elevator. This would result in the overall “hands off” configuration having a negative Cl = -0.420 over the entire span occupied by the elevator. This would result in a severe “tuck”.

 

If the elevator portion of the LS1 is redesigned so as to not deflect up or down in flight and to be in trail throughout most of the AOA range, then the a result is shown below. This design should acheive a “hands off” Cl of 0.434 (slightly less than the bare LS1 of 0.461) and a Cd is 0.0198, very slightly higher than the bare LS1. No stick force or sparrow strainer would be required for this elevator profile if it performs as modeled, so the draggy and negative lift portion of the span would not be nescessary.

 

But what about a different airfoil, such as the the  Roncz 1145MS airfoil? R1145MS would result in the same Cl as the modified-elevator LS airfoil, but at a lower Cd of 0.01393. As shown below.

However, the Ronz airfoil, if fitted with an articulated elevator in the Q2 configuration, would tend to see the elevator deflect downward before achieving aerodynamic balance with no springs, stick force or sparrow strainer applied. Equilibrium would be achieved with the elevator deflected downward approximately 2 degrees as shown below. This deflection results in a higher Cl and would require that the overall airfoil be installed 1 degree nose down to the LS1 to perform aerodynamically similar to the LS1 equipped Q2. Doing so, would  yield a Cl of 0.458 and Cd of 0.01372 at an AOA of 2 degrees.

 

So we would mount the Roncz airfoil 1 degree lower angle. If we were to do this on a Q2, then the Cl would be similar to the LS1 airfoil, but the drag would be about 30% lower than the LS1: Cd 0.014 at and AOA of 2 degrees.

 

Note that none of these models include the effect of a turbulent stall bubble on the trailing edge of the elevator, so the numbers would be slightly different on a flying aircraft.

 

In summary, we see that the Roncz 1145MS airfoil would probably have been a better choice than the LS1 for a Q2, but it may not have been available at the time the decision of QAC was to go with the LS1. We can also see that the sparrow strainer solves the problem of preventing the LS1 elevator floating up in flight, but at a great drag cost and a reduction in overall canard lift over the span to which the sparrow strainer is applied (roughly 1/8 of the total span of the canard) with the 11.5” sparrow strainer, higher if using the 17.5’ sparrow strainer).

 

As shown above, it is possible to design a more benign elevator shape for the existing LS1 canard that will solve the problem of the elevator floating up in flight without the need for a sparrow strainer, but this solution is not as efficient with respect to drag as would be use of an entirely new airfoil as was done by John Roncz for the Long EZ.

 

This is my analysis so far. I will continue to work on this as time permits.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Flight report

Kevin Boddicker
 

Well. After all of my pissing and moaning for weeks now, I finally got my first flight of the year (in my Q) completed.
Nice day, compared to what we have been experiencing, light and variable winds, clear skies, 33°F on the ramp.
I had not flown my Q since early October. Followed by my condition inspection completed in November.

With that said I decided after run up, I would make a couple of fast taxi’s to see WOT and evaluate the power, smoothness of the engine, carb heat at WOT.
All was good. TO on 29 was smooth. Climb at 110MPH indicated yielded about 1000’ FPM climb.
Left the pattern, just flew around and enjoyed the recreation side of homebuilding!
1.4 hours later I was on the ground with a re-usable plane.

On base to final, a Piper Arrow decided that I needed some excitement, and said “Im going to get out of your way and depart.
I said “don’t” but then said I would go around. He said “you have plenty of room” as I was turning on final, and he was just getting a roll started. Went around in a right pattern, so I would not overfly him. Made a big circle and re-entered DW. Landing was acceptable.
No broken or missing parts.

The experience beats the hell out of whining about not flying!

As Jay said earlier, Get um dun. That too beats the hell out of building!




Kevin Boddicker
TriQ 200 N7868B 571hrs
Luana, IA.


Re: Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)

Mike Dwyer
 

With a lower angle of attack on the canard, wouldn't that reduce the margin of having the canard stall prior to the main wing?
I'd still like to see a better sparrow strainer design.  Move it into the airstream and make it operate in a "not stalled" condition so it could be smaller...
Mike Dwyer Q200
Great work Jay!

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


On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 6:37 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Let me preface this with the statement that the current design of sparrow strainers works. You should not deviate from that design. The following is purely theoretical at this point and is not flight proven.

 

Here are my observations so far.

At 2 degress AOA, which is about where the Q2 is at high speed cruise, the standard LS! Airfoil produces a Cl of 0.461 and Cd of 0.0191 as shown below

In order to reverse the effect of the elevator deflecting upward in flight, sparrow strainers are installed. As a result, the span that contains the sparrow strainers ends up with an overall NEGATIVE lift coefficient, Cl of -0.333 and almost double the drag of the clean LS1: a Cd of 0.0317  (shown below). The extreme pressure field of the sparrow strainer, because of its high angle relative to the streamlines, actually kills the lift of the LS1 airfoil over the length of span that is occupied by the sparrow strainer. The result is a negative lift coefficient over that portion of the span. So roughly 1/8 of the total canard span (the portion of the span with the sparrow strainer installed)  is actually providing negative lift at an AOA of 2 degrees, and is creating lots more drag than it would if there was no sparrow strainer present.

 

The catch 22 is that we know the sparrow strainer is necessary for the LS1 profile, as we can demonstrate as follows:

 

If the sparrow strainer is omitted and no stick force is applied (hands off), the elevator portion of the canard will tend to reflex up in flight. But, how much would it reflex up? 

 

Well, it looks like it would reflex up 20 degrees before the pressure field is in equilibrium on top and bottom of the elevator. This would result in the overall “hands off” configuration having a negative Cl = -0.420 over the entire span occupied by the elevator. This would result in a severe “tuck”.

 

If the elevator portion of the LS1 is redesigned so as to not deflect up or down in flight and to be in trail throughout most of the AOA range, then the a result is shown below. This design should acheive a “hands off” Cl of 0.434 (slightly less than the bare LS1 of 0.461) and a Cd is 0.0198, very slightly higher than the bare LS1. No stick force or sparrow strainer would be required for this elevator profile if it performs as modeled, so the draggy and negative lift portion of the span would not be nescessary.

 

But what about a different airfoil, such as the the  Roncz 1145MS airfoil? R1145MS would result in the same Cl as the modified-elevator LS airfoil, but at a lower Cd of 0.01393. As shown below.

However, the Ronz airfoil, if fitted with an articulated elevator in the Q2 configuration, would tend to see the elevator deflect downward before achieving aerodynamic balance with no springs, stick force or sparrow strainer applied. Equilibrium would be achieved with the elevator deflected downward approximately 2 degrees as shown below. This deflection results in a higher Cl and would require that the overall airfoil be installed 1 degree nose down to the LS1 to perform aerodynamically similar to the LS1 equipped Q2. Doing so, would  yield a Cl of 0.458 and Cd of 0.01372 at an AOA of 2 degrees.

 

So we would mount the Roncz airfoil 1 degree lower angle. If we were to do this on a Q2, then the Cl would be similar to the LS1 airfoil, but the drag would be about 30% lower than the LS1: Cd 0.014 at and AOA of 2 degrees.

 

Note that none of these models include the effect of a turbulent stall bubble on the trailing edge of the elevator, so the numbers would be slightly different on a flying aircraft.

 

In summary, we see that the Roncz 1145MS airfoil would probably have been a better choice than the LS1 for a Q2, but it may not have been available at the time the decision of QAC was to go with the LS1. We can also see that the sparrow strainer solves the problem of preventing the LS1 elevator floating up in flight, but at a great drag cost and a reduction in overall canard lift over the span to which the sparrow strainer is applied (roughly 1/8 of the total span of the canard) with the 11.5” sparrow strainer, higher if using the 17.5’ sparrow strainer).

 

As shown above, it is possible to design a more benign elevator shape for the existing LS1 canard that will solve the problem of the elevator floating up in flight without the need for a sparrow strainer, but this solution is not as efficient with respect to drag as would be use of an entirely new airfoil as was done by John Roncz for the Long EZ.

 

This is my analysis so far. I will continue to work on this as time permits.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)

Jay Scheevel
 

Let me preface this with the statement that the current design of sparrow strainers works. You should not deviate from that design. The following is purely theoretical at this point and is not flight proven.

 

Here are my observations so far.

At 2 degress AOA, which is about where the Q2 is at high speed cruise, the standard LS! Airfoil produces a Cl of 0.461 and Cd of 0.0191 as shown below

In order to reverse the effect of the elevator deflecting upward in flight, sparrow strainers are installed. As a result, the span that contains the sparrow strainers ends up with an overall NEGATIVE lift coefficient, Cl of -0.333 and almost double the drag of the clean LS1: a Cd of 0.0317  (shown below). The extreme pressure field of the sparrow strainer, because of its high angle relative to the streamlines, actually kills the lift of the LS1 airfoil over the length of span that is occupied by the sparrow strainer. The result is a negative lift coefficient over that portion of the span. So roughly 1/8 of the total canard span (the portion of the span with the sparrow strainer installed)  is actually providing negative lift at an AOA of 2 degrees, and is creating lots more drag than it would if there was no sparrow strainer present.

 

The catch 22 is that we know the sparrow strainer is necessary for the LS1 profile, as we can demonstrate as follows:

 

If the sparrow strainer is omitted and no stick force is applied (hands off), the elevator portion of the canard will tend to reflex up in flight. But, how much would it reflex up? 

 

Well, it looks like it would reflex up 20 degrees before the pressure field is in equilibrium on top and bottom of the elevator. This would result in the overall “hands off” configuration having a negative Cl = -0.420 over the entire span occupied by the elevator. This would result in a severe “tuck”.

 

If the elevator portion of the LS1 is redesigned so as to not deflect up or down in flight and to be in trail throughout most of the AOA range, then the a result is shown below. This design should acheive a “hands off” Cl of 0.434 (slightly less than the bare LS1 of 0.461) and a Cd is 0.0198, very slightly higher than the bare LS1. No stick force or sparrow strainer would be required for this elevator profile if it performs as modeled, so the draggy and negative lift portion of the span would not be nescessary.

 

But what about a different airfoil, such as the the  Roncz 1145MS airfoil? R1145MS would result in the same Cl as the modified-elevator LS airfoil, but at a lower Cd of 0.01393. As shown below.

However, the Ronz airfoil, if fitted with an articulated elevator in the Q2 configuration, would tend to see the elevator deflect downward before achieving aerodynamic balance with no springs, stick force or sparrow strainer applied. Equilibrium would be achieved with the elevator deflected downward approximately 2 degrees as shown below. This deflection results in a higher Cl and would require that the overall airfoil be installed 1 degree nose down to the LS1 to perform aerodynamically similar to the LS1 equipped Q2. Doing so, would  yield a Cl of 0.458 and Cd of 0.01372 at an AOA of 2 degrees.

 

So we would mount the Roncz airfoil 1 degree lower angle. If we were to do this on a Q2, then the Cl would be similar to the LS1 airfoil, but the drag would be about 30% lower than the LS1: Cd 0.014 at and AOA of 2 degrees.

 

Note that none of these models include the effect of a turbulent stall bubble on the trailing edge of the elevator, so the numbers would be slightly different on a flying aircraft.

 

In summary, we see that the Roncz 1145MS airfoil would probably have been a better choice than the LS1 for a Q2, but it may not have been available at the time the decision of QAC was to go with the LS1. We can also see that the sparrow strainer solves the problem of preventing the LS1 elevator floating up in flight, but at a great drag cost and a reduction in overall canard lift over the span to which the sparrow strainer is applied (roughly 1/8 of the total span of the canard) with the 11.5” sparrow strainer, higher if using the 17.5’ sparrow strainer).

 

As shown above, it is possible to design a more benign elevator shape for the existing LS1 canard that will solve the problem of the elevator floating up in flight without the need for a sparrow strainer, but this solution is not as efficient with respect to drag as would be use of an entirely new airfoil as was done by John Roncz for the Long EZ.

 

This is my analysis so far. I will continue to work on this as time permits.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Re: Turn radius

Rick Hole
 

Thanks.  I was not going to be able to sleep trying to figure the G load for 3/8 inch!

Sonia (1953-2020) & Rick

On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 2:24 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Sorry that 3/8” would be very tight. What I meant was 3/8 mile!

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 1:18 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Turn radius

 

Was just looking at the details from my EFIS on yesterday’s flight. Good to know what the max performance figures are. 120 mph IAS, and 60 degree bank angle holding altitude, the plane will turn in a circle @ 3/8” diameter and feels good. The two E-W roads at the left hand side of this map are ½ mile appart.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Re: Turn radius

Jay Scheevel
 

Sorry that 3/8” would be very tight. What I meant was 3/8 mile!

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Scheevel
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 1:18 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] Turn radius

 

Was just looking at the details from my EFIS on yesterday’s flight. Good to know what the max performance figures are. 120 mph IAS, and 60 degree bank angle holding altitude, the plane will turn in a circle @ 3/8” diameter and feels good. The two E-W roads at the left hand side of this map are ½ mile appart.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Re: Turn radius

Anthony P
 

3/8" diameter is even better than my helicopter in a hover!    :)   ;)

That's an amazingly nice circle.


--
Q2 N86KL


Turn radius

Jay Scheevel
 

Was just looking at the details from my EFIS on yesterday’s flight. Good to know what the max performance figures are. 120 mph IAS, and 60 degree bank angle holding altitude, the plane will turn in a circle @ 3/8” diameter and feels good. The two E-W roads at the left hand side of this map are ½ mile appart.

 

Cheers,

Jay


Re: First Q2 Serial Number

Richard Thomson
 

    In the early CP's, Burt had a list of builders and serial numbers, I wonder if there is not a similar list somewhere for the Q's.

   Rich T.

  

On 27/02/2022 00:42, Michael Dunning wrote:
Gee Kevin, looks like you definitely set the record for "High Score" in the S/N game 👍

Hopefully someone can do sufficient pestering to get a Scott Swing Q-tour; sounds epic!
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Flight report

Richard Thomson
 

    Wow Jay, makes me feel dizzy just looking at your flightpath.

    Its the best time of year to fly, great performance and great Vis.

    Thanks for the advice.

    Rich T.

On 26/02/2022 23:44, Jay Scheevel wrote:

Went up for a winter flight today and it was very enjoyable. When I took off, it was -3C and during the flight, climbed to over 9000 feet at -10C. It was smooth air and severe clear, so sight seeing was a pleasure with 100+ mile visibility. This is a nice time of year to fly, since my radiator doors are completely closed and everything is quite clean aerodynamically, and there is plenty of power and climb.

 

From a destination standpoint, it was a case of all dressed up (bundled up) and nowhere to go.  I am including a picture of my flight path, so you can get the idea. I was mostly flying in the vicinity of my home airport (10CO) between 8 and 9 thousand feet. I admit is looks like a ball of twine, but it was a chance to do some wingovers, chandelles, really steep turns and to get quality work on my feel for the speed dynamics and coordination of the plane and pilot. I like the fact that its accel-deceleration characteristics are very smooth and controls are well balanced in all phases. I recommend this highly to other Q-drivers. It is fun and at the end you feel like you have sharpened your skills.

 

As a final exercise I circled down from 8000’ with the throttle pulled to idle. I made my last turn onto downwind at pattern altitude and 100 mph indicated and did a squeaker landing close to the target point on the runway. I had not done this for a while, so that felt good and pushed the plane back over the snow into the hangar with a smile on my face.

 

Well, that’s all from the wild west… All you Q-builders need to become Q-flyers!

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, N8WQ  204 hours


Re: Flight report

Bruce Crain
 

Looks like your signature Dr J!
Bruce


On Feb 26, 2022, at 6:12 PM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:


We can tell that you weren't using an autopilot!
Fun report, thanks!
Mike Dwyer Q200

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


On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 6:44 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Went up for a winter flight today and it was very enjoyable. When I took off, it was -3C and during the flight, climbed to over 9000 feet at -10C. It was smooth air and severe clear, so sight seeing was a pleasure with 100+ mile visibility. This is a nice time of year to fly, since my radiator doors are completely closed and everything is quite clean aerodynamically, and there is plenty of power and climb.

 

From a destination standpoint, it was a case of all dressed up (bundled up) and nowhere to go.  I am including a picture of my flight path, so you can get the idea. I was mostly flying in the vicinity of my home airport (10CO) between 8 and 9 thousand feet. I admit is looks like a ball of twine, but it was a chance to do some wingovers, chandelles, really steep turns and to get quality work on my feel for the speed dynamics and coordination of the plane and pilot. I like the fact that its accel-deceleration characteristics are very smooth and controls are well balanced in all phases. I recommend this highly to other Q-drivers. It is fun and at the end you feel like you have sharpened your skills.

 

As a final exercise I circled down from 8000’ with the throttle pulled to idle. I made my last turn onto downwind at pattern altitude and 100 mph indicated and did a squeaker landing close to the target point on the runway. I had not done this for a while, so that felt good and pushed the plane back over the snow into the hangar with a smile on my face.

 

Well, that’s all from the wild west… All you Q-builders need to become Q-flyers!

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, N8WQ  204 hours

<image001.png>


Re: First Q2 Serial Number

Michael Dunning
 

Gee Kevin, looks like you definitely set the record for "High Score" in the S/N game 👍

Hopefully someone can do sufficient pestering to get a Scott Swing Q-tour; sounds epic!
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: First Q2 Serial Number

Rick Hole
 

On my last visit I stopped by to speak with him.  His Q200 was parked at the front spot in the hangar.  It might make a Q-tour, or maybe just his remembrances of his days at QAC would be even more interesting.

 Rick Hole
Tegucigalpa, Honduras 

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 6:13 PM Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:
Rick, that is an excellent idea. He was at QAC during a lot of this stuff. 

Jim
N46JP Q200

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Rick Hole via groups.io <r.hole=ieee.org@groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 3:48:05 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number
 
Scott was my boss at Velocity 2005-2016.  You might find it easier to get him for an  interview him on our Zoom platform.

Rick Hole

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 4:32 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Good points, Vern. The only person that is still somewhat “available” to talk about what it was like in that QAC shop way back when is Scott Swing. It would be fun to get him to write a little retrospective from the QAC manufacturing side of the fence, at least as much as he can recall. It would be a good companion series to what our own Jim Masal produced from the perspective of the builder side of the fence.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frankenbird Vern
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 12:15 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

 

As all know, for registration with the FAA it isn't super critical about the serial numbers anyway since there is no such thing 

as Service Bulletin or Airworthiness Directive issued to our machines. 

😊

 

 For me it is interesting in the question as to how many Q birds were actually released, because the fabrication of the 

shells and spars alone would have been an involved manufacturing line. Tooling for sure! Supply chain of the non layup parts 

another big challenge.  The FAA registry is of no particular help on numbers either. My project for instance..can't by

rights call it a Q2 OR a Dragonfly. 

 

 On my wifes airplane.. the Capella XS2.. the supply chain fails is what took the program into the Court system!  Not quite

as bad as the BD5 fiasco ended up being, but there was a lot of angst on the part of John Reid Howell Jr in Austin Texas.

 It's a nice airplane and kinda reminds me of Deputy Dog, well engineered and has good STOL performance but he was still

driven out.    

 

 Events like this aught be a warning to others that intend on aircraft factory startups which are really difficult to 

achieve even in the most favorable of Markets (cubic Dollars for one). You can have the best design from any other but 

get hammered from all nature of problems surrounding the build.

 

  A major part of the Manufacturing Engineering world as I did (do sometimes now also) is work around the supply chain

fails to meet the delivery day. Chasing down snafu's and doing design review sign offs to hopefully keep the bugs out before 

they hit the Shop. Globalization has BIG TIME magnified the problems, and the bean counters whining about raw material 

storage taxes and payrolls is what took us to our knees.  

 

 The suits killed off the "in house build" and in doing that we ended up with zero safety net to protect the schedule. Then they

wrote up and signed into stupid contracts. The Lazy B is now in a hurt partly because JIT went to hell in a handbasket. 

China Offset and others like that one bit them in the ass, just as the old timers in my world told them would happen.  

 

 It is a tribute that the Q factory did accomplish these kits, guys. It was a major task and still would be, and for what they had to work 

with I am amazed at the the quality details they produced. Its why completing the project IS worthwhile, if for no other reason 

than the efforts these folks went through to fabricate and ship the kits. I know it might sound corny but the folks doing the layups

were not thinking only of the paycheck. In some corner of their thoughts that knew they were making something

that fulfilled someones dream.  As Bruce says "Git Er Done!"   

 

Vern           


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:23 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

I suspect that my kit may be one of the last full kits out the door at QAC. I received the last of my shipments in late 1984. 

 

Cheers,

Jay 



On Feb 25, 2022, at 9:10 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



My SN is #2468

 

Jim

N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:53:50 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

FYI, my Q200 kit was sn 2841.

Mike Dwyer Q200

 

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 8:44 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

Like many kit manufacturers, the leading digit(s) represent the model. So the 2000’s indicate Q2, where the Q1’s had no leading digit (I think).  

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Dunning
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 6:14 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

Found this little tidbit in Q-talk #17, anyone know of it's true?

Dear Jim,

Regarding serial number trivia, my recollection is that 2000-2009 were QAC factory reserved and 2010-2019 were reserved for the Canadian LeGare "factory" or vice versa. Mojave factory production units reportedly started at 2020 or so.

I am preparing again to complete my project. I finally got to talk to Gene Sheehan who was helpful and enthusiastic but has been heavily involved in a consulting job and hasn't been available at Mojave.

I also talked to Gordon Olsen at Cowley, Inc. (805) 824-2368 Mojave airport, who still has an oversized Q-2 canopy available.

Ben O'Brien, Redondo Beach, CA


Quicktalk 13 mentions Q1 serial numbers not going above 550.

In my case, that would mean I have the 807th Q2 kit QAC sold, not the almost 3-thousandth. That's still a big number but Jay's comment about sub kits getting S/N's is something I never thought about before. There may be a whole lot less fully complete kits out in the wild than I had originally thought?...
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: First Q2 Serial Number

Frankenbird Vern
 

 I was told my Canard and Wing were built by a very knowledgeable composites builder on the Florida coast. It would be
great to hear the stories. 

 Wonder who it was I was told about?? 

 Vern


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 6:13 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number
 
Rick, that is an excellent idea. He was at QAC during a lot of this stuff. 

Jim
N46JP Q200

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Rick Hole via groups.io <r.hole@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 3:48:05 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number
 
Scott was my boss at Velocity 2005-2016.  You might find it easier to get him for an  interview him on our Zoom platform.

Rick Hole

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 4:32 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Good points, Vern. The only person that is still somewhat “available” to talk about what it was like in that QAC shop way back when is Scott Swing. It would be fun to get him to write a little retrospective from the QAC manufacturing side of the fence, at least as much as he can recall. It would be a good companion series to what our own Jim Masal produced from the perspective of the builder side of the fence.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frankenbird Vern
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 12:15 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

 

As all know, for registration with the FAA it isn't super critical about the serial numbers anyway since there is no such thing 

as Service Bulletin or Airworthiness Directive issued to our machines. 

😊

 

 For me it is interesting in the question as to how many Q birds were actually released, because the fabrication of the 

shells and spars alone would have been an involved manufacturing line. Tooling for sure! Supply chain of the non layup parts 

another big challenge.  The FAA registry is of no particular help on numbers either. My project for instance..can't by

rights call it a Q2 OR a Dragonfly. 

 

 On my wifes airplane.. the Capella XS2.. the supply chain fails is what took the program into the Court system!  Not quite

as bad as the BD5 fiasco ended up being, but there was a lot of angst on the part of John Reid Howell Jr in Austin Texas.

 It's a nice airplane and kinda reminds me of Deputy Dog, well engineered and has good STOL performance but he was still

driven out.    

 

 Events like this aught be a warning to others that intend on aircraft factory startups which are really difficult to 

achieve even in the most favorable of Markets (cubic Dollars for one). You can have the best design from any other but 

get hammered from all nature of problems surrounding the build.

 

  A major part of the Manufacturing Engineering world as I did (do sometimes now also) is work around the supply chain

fails to meet the delivery day. Chasing down snafu's and doing design review sign offs to hopefully keep the bugs out before 

they hit the Shop. Globalization has BIG TIME magnified the problems, and the bean counters whining about raw material 

storage taxes and payrolls is what took us to our knees.  

 

 The suits killed off the "in house build" and in doing that we ended up with zero safety net to protect the schedule. Then they

wrote up and signed into stupid contracts. The Lazy B is now in a hurt partly because JIT went to hell in a handbasket. 

China Offset and others like that one bit them in the ass, just as the old timers in my world told them would happen.  

 

 It is a tribute that the Q factory did accomplish these kits, guys. It was a major task and still would be, and for what they had to work 

with I am amazed at the the quality details they produced. Its why completing the project IS worthwhile, if for no other reason 

than the efforts these folks went through to fabricate and ship the kits. I know it might sound corny but the folks doing the layups

were not thinking only of the paycheck. In some corner of their thoughts that knew they were making something

that fulfilled someones dream.  As Bruce says "Git Er Done!"   

 

Vern           


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:23 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

I suspect that my kit may be one of the last full kits out the door at QAC. I received the last of my shipments in late 1984. 

 

Cheers,

Jay 



On Feb 25, 2022, at 9:10 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



My SN is #2468

 

Jim

N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:53:50 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

FYI, my Q200 kit was sn 2841.

Mike Dwyer Q200

 

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 8:44 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

Like many kit manufacturers, the leading digit(s) represent the model. So the 2000’s indicate Q2, where the Q1’s had no leading digit (I think).  

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Dunning
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 6:14 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

Found this little tidbit in Q-talk #17, anyone know of it's true?

Dear Jim,

Regarding serial number trivia, my recollection is that 2000-2009 were QAC factory reserved and 2010-2019 were reserved for the Canadian LeGare "factory" or vice versa. Mojave factory production units reportedly started at 2020 or so.

I am preparing again to complete my project. I finally got to talk to Gene Sheehan who was helpful and enthusiastic but has been heavily involved in a consulting job and hasn't been available at Mojave.

I also talked to Gordon Olsen at Cowley, Inc. (805) 824-2368 Mojave airport, who still has an oversized Q-2 canopy available.

Ben O'Brien, Redondo Beach, CA


Quicktalk 13 mentions Q1 serial numbers not going above 550.

In my case, that would mean I have the 807th Q2 kit QAC sold, not the almost 3-thousandth. That's still a big number but Jay's comment about sub kits getting S/N's is something I never thought about before. There may be a whole lot less fully complete kits out in the wild than I had originally thought?...
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: First Q2 Serial Number

Jim Patillo
 

Rick, that is an excellent idea. He was at QAC during a lot of this stuff. 

Jim
N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Rick Hole via groups.io <r.hole@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 3:48:05 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number
 
Scott was my boss at Velocity 2005-2016.  You might find it easier to get him for an  interview him on our Zoom platform.

Rick Hole

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 4:32 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Good points, Vern. The only person that is still somewhat “available” to talk about what it was like in that QAC shop way back when is Scott Swing. It would be fun to get him to write a little retrospective from the QAC manufacturing side of the fence, at least as much as he can recall. It would be a good companion series to what our own Jim Masal produced from the perspective of the builder side of the fence.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frankenbird Vern
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 12:15 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

 

As all know, for registration with the FAA it isn't super critical about the serial numbers anyway since there is no such thing 

as Service Bulletin or Airworthiness Directive issued to our machines. 

😊

 

 For me it is interesting in the question as to how many Q birds were actually released, because the fabrication of the 

shells and spars alone would have been an involved manufacturing line. Tooling for sure! Supply chain of the non layup parts 

another big challenge.  The FAA registry is of no particular help on numbers either. My project for instance..can't by

rights call it a Q2 OR a Dragonfly. 

 

 On my wifes airplane.. the Capella XS2.. the supply chain fails is what took the program into the Court system!  Not quite

as bad as the BD5 fiasco ended up being, but there was a lot of angst on the part of John Reid Howell Jr in Austin Texas.

 It's a nice airplane and kinda reminds me of Deputy Dog, well engineered and has good STOL performance but he was still

driven out.    

 

 Events like this aught be a warning to others that intend on aircraft factory startups which are really difficult to 

achieve even in the most favorable of Markets (cubic Dollars for one). You can have the best design from any other but 

get hammered from all nature of problems surrounding the build.

 

  A major part of the Manufacturing Engineering world as I did (do sometimes now also) is work around the supply chain

fails to meet the delivery day. Chasing down snafu's and doing design review sign offs to hopefully keep the bugs out before 

they hit the Shop. Globalization has BIG TIME magnified the problems, and the bean counters whining about raw material 

storage taxes and payrolls is what took us to our knees.  

 

 The suits killed off the "in house build" and in doing that we ended up with zero safety net to protect the schedule. Then they

wrote up and signed into stupid contracts. The Lazy B is now in a hurt partly because JIT went to hell in a handbasket. 

China Offset and others like that one bit them in the ass, just as the old timers in my world told them would happen.  

 

 It is a tribute that the Q factory did accomplish these kits, guys. It was a major task and still would be, and for what they had to work 

with I am amazed at the the quality details they produced. Its why completing the project IS worthwhile, if for no other reason 

than the efforts these folks went through to fabricate and ship the kits. I know it might sound corny but the folks doing the layups

were not thinking only of the paycheck. In some corner of their thoughts that knew they were making something

that fulfilled someones dream.  As Bruce says "Git Er Done!"   

 

Vern           


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:23 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

I suspect that my kit may be one of the last full kits out the door at QAC. I received the last of my shipments in late 1984. 

 

Cheers,

Jay 



On Feb 25, 2022, at 9:10 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



My SN is #2468

 

Jim

N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:53:50 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

FYI, my Q200 kit was sn 2841.

Mike Dwyer Q200

 

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 8:44 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

Like many kit manufacturers, the leading digit(s) represent the model. So the 2000’s indicate Q2, where the Q1’s had no leading digit (I think).  

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Dunning
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 6:14 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

Found this little tidbit in Q-talk #17, anyone know of it's true?

Dear Jim,

Regarding serial number trivia, my recollection is that 2000-2009 were QAC factory reserved and 2010-2019 were reserved for the Canadian LeGare "factory" or vice versa. Mojave factory production units reportedly started at 2020 or so.

I am preparing again to complete my project. I finally got to talk to Gene Sheehan who was helpful and enthusiastic but has been heavily involved in a consulting job and hasn't been available at Mojave.

I also talked to Gordon Olsen at Cowley, Inc. (805) 824-2368 Mojave airport, who still has an oversized Q-2 canopy available.

Ben O'Brien, Redondo Beach, CA


Quicktalk 13 mentions Q1 serial numbers not going above 550.

In my case, that would mean I have the 807th Q2 kit QAC sold, not the almost 3-thousandth. That's still a big number but Jay's comment about sub kits getting S/N's is something I never thought about before. There may be a whole lot less fully complete kits out in the wild than I had originally thought?...
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)


Re: Flight report

Mike Dwyer
 

We can tell that you weren't using an autopilot!
Fun report, thanks!
Mike Dwyer Q200

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


On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 6:44 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Went up for a winter flight today and it was very enjoyable. When I took off, it was -3C and during the flight, climbed to over 9000 feet at -10C. It was smooth air and severe clear, so sight seeing was a pleasure with 100+ mile visibility. This is a nice time of year to fly, since my radiator doors are completely closed and everything is quite clean aerodynamically, and there is plenty of power and climb.

 

From a destination standpoint, it was a case of all dressed up (bundled up) and nowhere to go.  I am including a picture of my flight path, so you can get the idea. I was mostly flying in the vicinity of my home airport (10CO) between 8 and 9 thousand feet. I admit is looks like a ball of twine, but it was a chance to do some wingovers, chandelles, really steep turns and to get quality work on my feel for the speed dynamics and coordination of the plane and pilot. I like the fact that its accel-deceleration characteristics are very smooth and controls are well balanced in all phases. I recommend this highly to other Q-drivers. It is fun and at the end you feel like you have sharpened your skills.

 

As a final exercise I circled down from 8000’ with the throttle pulled to idle. I made my last turn onto downwind at pattern altitude and 100 mph indicated and did a squeaker landing close to the target point on the runway. I had not done this for a while, so that felt good and pushed the plane back over the snow into the hangar with a smile on my face.

 

Well, that’s all from the wild west… All you Q-builders need to become Q-flyers!

 

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, N8WQ  204 hours


Re: First Q2 Serial Number

Rick Hole
 

Scott was my boss at Velocity 2005-2016.  You might find it easier to get him for an  interview him on our Zoom platform.

Rick Hole

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 4:32 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Good points, Vern. The only person that is still somewhat “available” to talk about what it was like in that QAC shop way back when is Scott Swing. It would be fun to get him to write a little retrospective from the QAC manufacturing side of the fence, at least as much as he can recall. It would be a good companion series to what our own Jim Masal produced from the perspective of the builder side of the fence.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frankenbird Vern
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 12:15 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

 

As all know, for registration with the FAA it isn't super critical about the serial numbers anyway since there is no such thing 

as Service Bulletin or Airworthiness Directive issued to our machines. 

😊

 

 For me it is interesting in the question as to how many Q birds were actually released, because the fabrication of the 

shells and spars alone would have been an involved manufacturing line. Tooling for sure! Supply chain of the non layup parts 

another big challenge.  The FAA registry is of no particular help on numbers either. My project for instance..can't by

rights call it a Q2 OR a Dragonfly. 

 

 On my wifes airplane.. the Capella XS2.. the supply chain fails is what took the program into the Court system!  Not quite

as bad as the BD5 fiasco ended up being, but there was a lot of angst on the part of John Reid Howell Jr in Austin Texas.

 It's a nice airplane and kinda reminds me of Deputy Dog, well engineered and has good STOL performance but he was still

driven out.    

 

 Events like this aught be a warning to others that intend on aircraft factory startups which are really difficult to 

achieve even in the most favorable of Markets (cubic Dollars for one). You can have the best design from any other but 

get hammered from all nature of problems surrounding the build.

 

  A major part of the Manufacturing Engineering world as I did (do sometimes now also) is work around the supply chain

fails to meet the delivery day. Chasing down snafu's and doing design review sign offs to hopefully keep the bugs out before 

they hit the Shop. Globalization has BIG TIME magnified the problems, and the bean counters whining about raw material 

storage taxes and payrolls is what took us to our knees.  

 

 The suits killed off the "in house build" and in doing that we ended up with zero safety net to protect the schedule. Then they

wrote up and signed into stupid contracts. The Lazy B is now in a hurt partly because JIT went to hell in a handbasket. 

China Offset and others like that one bit them in the ass, just as the old timers in my world told them would happen.  

 

 It is a tribute that the Q factory did accomplish these kits, guys. It was a major task and still would be, and for what they had to work 

with I am amazed at the the quality details they produced. Its why completing the project IS worthwhile, if for no other reason 

than the efforts these folks went through to fabricate and ship the kits. I know it might sound corny but the folks doing the layups

were not thinking only of the paycheck. In some corner of their thoughts that knew they were making something

that fulfilled someones dream.  As Bruce says "Git Er Done!"   

 

Vern           


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Scheevel <jay@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:23 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

I suspect that my kit may be one of the last full kits out the door at QAC. I received the last of my shipments in late 1984. 

 

Cheers,

Jay 



On Feb 25, 2022, at 9:10 PM, Jim Patillo <Logistics_engineering@...> wrote:



My SN is #2468

 

Jim

N46JP Q200


From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:53:50 PM
To: main@q-list.groups.io <main@q-list.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

FYI, my Q200 kit was sn 2841.

Mike Dwyer Q200

 

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 8:44 PM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

Like many kit manufacturers, the leading digit(s) represent the model. So the 2000’s indicate Q2, where the Q1’s had no leading digit (I think).  

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Michael Dunning
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 6:14 PM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io
Subject: [Q-List] First Q2 Serial Number

 

Found this little tidbit in Q-talk #17, anyone know of it's true?

Dear Jim,

Regarding serial number trivia, my recollection is that 2000-2009 were QAC factory reserved and 2010-2019 were reserved for the Canadian LeGare "factory" or vice versa. Mojave factory production units reportedly started at 2020 or so.

I am preparing again to complete my project. I finally got to talk to Gene Sheehan who was helpful and enthusiastic but has been heavily involved in a consulting job and hasn't been available at Mojave.

I also talked to Gordon Olsen at Cowley, Inc. (805) 824-2368 Mojave airport, who still has an oversized Q-2 canopy available.

Ben O'Brien, Redondo Beach, CA


Quicktalk 13 mentions Q1 serial numbers not going above 550.

In my case, that would mean I have the 807th Q2 kit QAC sold, not the almost 3-thousandth. That's still a big number but Jay's comment about sub kits getting S/N's is something I never thought about before. There may be a whole lot less fully complete kits out in the wild than I had originally thought?...
--
-MD
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)

1781 - 1800 of 55695