Date   

Re: Aircraft Registration

log@nemr.net <log@...>
 

Hello , My name is Darrell Daniels and I am currently in the registration process of my tri Q . My airplane was also scrapped and if you wish to talk to me about how I am doing it you can contact me off line at 660-349-0110.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: James Postma james@...
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:24:47 -0800
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Aircraft Registration


Not yet Pat. Actually you are the first to answer. There was a dragonfly
sold on the list last year like this, and I'm trying to run it down.

The EAA says that:
you have to have the builders logs to reregister it;
there have been no court awards against a builder by a subsequent owner;
deregistering and selling as parts does no good as the parts still have the
manufacturers liability if the manufacturer can be identified.

The FAA is expected to be non commital but varies from region to region.

So unless you can come up with the builders logs, the airframe is worthless.

So how are all these professional builders doing business? Sometimes the
owner participates in the build and poses for pictures.

The new owner could take it apart and reassemble it, but he has still not
built the components.

The penalties are severe for lying about your efforts so information is hard
to find and no reason to volunteer your experience unless it is very clean.

There has been only one succesful prosecution by the FAA against an owner
for falsifying his efforts and the owner was vocal about what he was doing.

Hope this helps. It doesn't help me very much. So right now if I buy a
parts airplane, the airframe is scrap unless I can convince the builder to
give me the logs. Something is not right with this picture, but it's life
in the airplane business. At least the fed lets us build our own but you
must do 51% of the work.

All of this is per EAA. I need some more inputs. Next is my local FISDO
but I do not expect any definitive answer. Also to talk to the professional
builders.

Do you know of any successful reregistrations? We could keep track of this
and maybe use anonymous names such as Q200 builder number 5, to protect the
registered builder.

James Postma
Q2 Revmaster N145EX
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
May your header tank be always full and your wings right side up.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Panzera" <panzera@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Aircraft Registration




James Postma wrote:

I would like to speak to someone off list who has experience or
knowledge about reregistering an experimental aircraft with the FAA which
has had its registration deleted and sold as parts.

James,

Any luck with finding the answer?

Pat



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


Re: sliding BROWNer

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

I have a simple prop mounted at the back edge of my front hinged canopy which holds the canopy
open about 3 inches at the rear when I want more ventilation on the ground. Opens just enough at
the front to provide a breeze off the prop and still allows vision through the plexiglas.

Bob F.
N200QK

Jim Patillo wrote:

I wanted something very simple that I could install quick release locking
pins in. My canopy can be removed in about 10 seconds.

Materials required: (4) 1" x 12 x 1/4" pieces of flat bar aluminum, four
locking pins and nuts and bolts, very simple. Bottom end of arms attaches
fuselage and top of arms to canopy forming a parallel a gram. There is about
4" between fuselage and canopy when open, providing the "right" amount of
air when taxiing on a hot summer day. Vision is not compromised. "Racking"
is minimal when opening or closing canopy.

I tried both the side hinge and forward hinge before settling on this
configuration.

If anyone is interested in this setup, contact me off line.

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200

The 4 arm canopy that patillo has gets you the air blast but does not lay
down close enough to the front deck when open. This may discourage one
from
having it open during taxi. I dunno. It probably racks a little but may be
more stable than the sliders.

j.





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Measurements.camber

Bob Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

David,

It may be that "half-corrected" makes more sense since at the speeds most of the
problems seem to occur, the wings are providing a substantial amount of lift and the
canard is not seeing full gross weight to deflect it.

Bob F.
N200QK

david.cyr@... wrote:

I'll say this. The negative camber does cause tire wear to be off center to the
inside of the tire. I don't know whether that's good or bad. I let the tire wear
on one side, then turn them around and wear the other side. I am getting about
175-200 hours per set of tires. I should go back and count the landings made in
that time to get a better comparison with other airplanes. The Gall alignment
should even out the tire wear, but maybe should include removing the toe out
when it is done. Has anyone experience with a "zero-zero" setting for toe and
camber?>

Bob Farnam,
Yes, I have a zero-zero set up. I inadvertently "half corrected" my camber when
I decided to remove the 2" toe-out that we had built into the Q2 at construction
time. I say half corrected, because I sighted the axle holes dead center when
the Q2 was on its mains with only its empty weight deflecting the canard. I
believe I noted a significant improvement in stability as a result. After
reading the David Gall article a few years later, I changed the camber to zero,
still with zero toe-in/out. I recall seeing some additional improvement. I
have (on occasion) rolled to a stop without moving the pedals, on a very smooth
runway. BTW, I rely heavily on reverse aileron steering for extra help when
needed... I don't have dual brakes, reflexor, belly-board or any other mod
other than a vertical tail-wheel pivot.
Dave Cyr


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: sliding BROWNer

Pat Panzera <panzera@...>
 

JMasal@... wrote:

type it looks like it would be a little harder to get in
and out of the plane.
I agree. That's the downside of the parallelogram and the forward hinge with
pistons. QAC was designing for a wide variety of occupants.
As with most designs, there's trade off's.

The side hinge canopy offers entry and exit from one side,
first in, last out. Passenger needs out, pilot must exit.

Forward hinging, although the opening may be smaller, allows
for either pilot or passenger to enter and/or exit at will.

Pat


Re: sliding BROWNer

Pat Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Sam Hoskins wrote:

Regarding emergency egress, none of these designs are any good when the
plane is upside down.
Although I find the messages about using airspeed to jettison the canopy
irrelevant, as I don't plan use a parachute, the forward hinge and parallel
hinge systems do offer egress if the ship ends up upside down.

I know of a Dragonfly pilot who found himself in this situation.
He unstrapped himself, unlatched the forward hinge canopy, and was able
to lift the fuselage up off the canopy enough to get out. He didn't have
to lift the full weight of the airframe, as the engine stayed on the
ground and sorta acted like a hinge.

I doubt one could do this with a side hinge canopy, unless the hinges
are quick release too.

Pat


Re: Prop Questions

Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

The PPonk calculator is for seaplanes where static thrust is critical above
all else (it's not going to go anything near fast with a set of those
hanging off of it).
Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall <David@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:31 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Prop Questions


Chris (and Pat),

I don't think that the pponk prop calculator is an appropriate tool for
the
kind of work you're asking of it. It seems to be targeted specifically at
the C-180 with only certain props. Also, the recommendations made on the
pponk page are targeted at static thrust measurements, which are a
notoriously bad indicator of propeller performance at speed.

In his book "Aircraft Propeller Design," Fred Weick says to pick the prop
so
as to allow the engine to turn up to full rated RPM at full throttle. (At
8000 ft, that'll give about 75% power, which is what most spam-cans are
rated at for cruise.) If you are running an auto conversion or a
hot-rodded
Continental, then you are the one to decide what is full rated RPM and
power.

Pat makes a good argument for the Corvair at around 120 hp at 4000 rpm.
The
engine is rated for 180 hp, so "de-rating" it to 67% makes good sense for
longevity. At 100 hp, as William Wynne had run his, it was de-rated to 55%
and lived for at least 800 hrs.

But the analogy with the engine in auto trim at 3400 rpm at 70 mph is not
valid. The engine may test at 100 hp on the dyno at 3400 rpm, but that's
at
full throttle. There's no assurance that the car would require full
throttle
to maintain 70 mph, therefore any attempt to say that the engine is "used
to
this (pulling 100hp)" in auto use is wrong. (Pulling a large boat on a
trailer is not considered "normal" for a Corvair.)

Likewise, declaring a normal cruise at 3400 rpm is no guarantee that the
engine will have to produce 100 hp to maintain that rpm. In fact, there is
little chance that the engine will be making 100 hp at that rpm in flight,
since it'll have to be throttled back to get the rpm down to that value.
The
actual horsepower produced will depend on the amount of power absorbed by
the propeller and, ultimately, by the airplane's drag. Of course, if the
propeller is in-flight adjustable, the engine could be made to run at full
throttle at that rpm and then it would be making 100 hp (if done at sea
level).

You might want to consider buying a ground-adjustable prop if yours is a
first-time combination of airframe and engine. If not, then just copy what
the fast, successful guys are using.


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris McAtee [mailto:Subcanis@...]
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:50 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Prop Questions


Hey everyone, could you fill me in?

With the diameter of the prop limited on our Q's, should one spin the prop
as fast as the engine can handle? For example: at 3600 RPM, the tip of a
60
inch prop (@18 degrees F) is just at the bottom of the recommended tip
speed
range (as specified by http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html).
So does this mean that if my motor can handle 3600 continuous RPM's I
should, or should I up the pitch and turn it slower?

Chris McAtee
Tri-Q200 (in progress)
Email:
subcanis@...
subcanis@...
Home:
2917 Pheasant Dr.
Casper, WY 82604
(307)265-5375
School:
University of Wyoming
614 White Hall
Laramie, WY 82071
(307)766-8670


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Aircraft Registration

James Postma <james@...>
 

Not yet Pat. Actually you are the first to answer. There was a dragonfly
sold on the list last year like this, and I'm trying to run it down.

The EAA says that:
you have to have the builders logs to reregister it;
there have been no court awards against a builder by a subsequent owner;
deregistering and selling as parts does no good as the parts still have the
manufacturers liability if the manufacturer can be identified.

The FAA is expected to be non commital but varies from region to region.

So unless you can come up with the builders logs, the airframe is worthless.

So how are all these professional builders doing business? Sometimes the
owner participates in the build and poses for pictures.

The new owner could take it apart and reassemble it, but he has still not
built the components.

The penalties are severe for lying about your efforts so information is hard
to find and no reason to volunteer your experience unless it is very clean.

There has been only one succesful prosecution by the FAA against an owner
for falsifying his efforts and the owner was vocal about what he was doing.

Hope this helps. It doesn't help me very much. So right now if I buy a
parts airplane, the airframe is scrap unless I can convince the builder to
give me the logs. Something is not right with this picture, but it's life
in the airplane business. At least the fed lets us build our own but you
must do 51% of the work.

All of this is per EAA. I need some more inputs. Next is my local FISDO
but I do not expect any definitive answer. Also to talk to the professional
builders.

Do you know of any successful reregistrations? We could keep track of this
and maybe use anonymous names such as Q200 builder number 5, to protect the
registered builder.

James Postma
Q2 Revmaster N145EX
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
May your header tank be always full and your wings right side up.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Panzera" <panzera@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Aircraft Registration




James Postma wrote:

I would like to speak to someone off list who has experience or
knowledge about reregistering an experimental aircraft with the FAA which
has had its registration deleted and sold as parts.

James,

Any luck with finding the answer?

Pat



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: January 1 Progress Report

Chris McAtee <Subcanis@...>
 

<<Well, it's the start of a new year and time for all the builders to 'fess up....>>

Well, I didn't get a whole lot done. It was odd, as I had many weeks with absolutely no work followed by week-long spurts of working 12 hours a day. I got my spars joined wnd the leading edge cores (incl center section cores) attached, and have been working on micro-ing them into perfection before I cover them. Unfortunatly, its been too cold to do any glass work so its been sitting in my garage acting as a storage shelf for my moms stuff (that really really annoys me, by the way).

Even though I haven't been physically working on my plane in a while, I've been thinking a lot about what I want to do with it (ie: engine choice, panel layout, canopy mechanism, etc). I guess it counts for something, as I've decided on a lot of things (which I think will help in the long run, since Ill already have many things laid out and wont have to take time out when its warm enough to work to plan things). Im leaning heavily towards using a Corvair engine, with the proper cam and following William Wynnes conversion manual. I've been looking heavily at using both the MicroMoniter and the MicroEncoder from Rocky Mountain instruments, which will save me lots of panel space (that and theyre made right here in Wyoming!). As far as the canopy goes, Im thinking of using Patillo's idea. I got to see it when he and Bob Farnum were passing through Cheyenne earlier this fall (man thems is some purdy planes!).

This winter is going to be spent going to school and trying to save up for my Tri-Gear kit. Then (fingers crossed here) this summer will be spent installing the canard, the tri-gear, and all the flight controls. The winter after that is engine work (rebuild and installation) followed by panel and paint.

If all goes as planned with college and finances, my airplane WILL be flying for the fall/winter of 2003. Im going to be flying in the year of the 100th anniversary of powered flight, and you all can mark me on that one. Have a productive and safe year everybody, and I want to thank everyone thats put up with all my ignorance and helped me out so much. Ill finally get it someday, I promise!

Chris McAtee
Tri-Q200 (in progress)
Email:
subcanis@...
subcanis@...
Home:
2917 Pheasant Dr.
Casper, WY 82604
(307)265-5375
School:
University of Wyoming
614 White Hall
Laramie, WY 82071
(307)766-8670


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


January 1 Progress Report

John Loram <johnl@...>
 

Well, it's the start of a new year and time for all the builders to 'fess
up....

What did you get done last year???

For myself, I completed and installed the cockpit internal structures ( fuel
tanks, arm rests, center console ), plumbed the fuel system, installed the
aileron control system (dual side sticks), and fabricated the motor mount
for the Jabiru 3300.

Next is mounting the canopy and installing the rudder control system ala
Farnam, then the toe brakes.

Happy New Year and happy building to all, -john-


Re: Prop Questions

kittleson1@...
 

Dear John,

I don't think that a turbine engine hitting some resonant frequency and
coming apart
has anything to do with revving the O200 over 2750 rpm.

I would bet that the redline was set more by them as that's where they
achieved the HP they had
set out to deliver. Using your empirical wisdom would DICtate that the
similarly sized Lycoming would
come apart a hundred or so RPM sooner, as it has a lower redline.

Happy New Year

Al

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:54:16 +1100 "jtenhave@..."
<jtenhave@...> writes:
Hi David,

You and I are both right, but I should have been a bit more
concise. I
was referring to the remedial derating of the engine (i.e. reducing
the RPM
range out of resonance). This reduction enabled the jets to remain
flying
whilst the Rolls Royce engine designers stood in a circle taking
turns to
kick each others bums for overlooking the "not so obvious" and
trying to
explain to the bean counters why this "whoopsie" was going to cost
several
million dollars to fix.

happy New Year to you all

John

-----Original Message-----
From: David J. Gall [SMTP:David@...]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 1:44 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Prop Questions

John,

You, of course, meant to say, "take the parts INTO the resonant
range."


David J. Gall

-----Original Message-----
From: jtenhave@... [mailto:jtenhave@...]
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 8:07 PM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Prop Questions


Richard,
and the TBO is......?
< snip, snip... >

From memory 6% change in RPM was all that was required to take
the
parts
out of the resonant range.





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.


Re: sliding BROWNer

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

Regarding emergency egress, none of these designs are any good when the
plane is upside down. I'm speaking from experience. I now carry a really
coarse folding saw (Stanley) for the worse case scenario.

$.02

Sam

----- Original Message -----
From: <JMasal@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: sliding BROWNer


In a message dated 1/1/02 11:19:36 AM Central Standard Time,
patillo@... writes:


I wanted something very simple that I could install quick release
locking
pins in. My canopy can be removed in about 10 seconds.

Emergency egress is important to me. I figure you could blow a forward
hinge
canopy in about 5 seconds or less. I think 10 for the parallelogram is
quite
good... and you have the advantage of summer airflow.

j.






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: sliding BROWNer

Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

The parallelogram canopy is pretty simple, so I like it, ... but compaired
to the side hinge type it looks like it would be a little harder to get in
and out of the plane. I can eject my side hinge canopy in about a second
(just open it, it will be ripped off right fast!) Taxi cooling of the pilot
on the ground with the side mount is good with the canopy in the safety
latch position (see plans).

Mike Q-200

----- Original Message -----
From: JMasal@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: sliding BROWNer


In a message dated 1/1/02 11:19:36 AM Central Standard Time,
patillo@... writes:


I wanted something very simple that I could install quick release locking
pins in. My canopy can be removed in about 10 seconds.

Emergency egress is important to me. I figure you could blow a forward hinge
canopy in about 5 seconds or less. I think 10 for the parallelogram is quite
good... and you have the advantage of summer airflow.

j.


New file uploaded to Q-LIST

Q-LIST@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Q-LIST
group.

File : /Jim Patillo- N46JP Q200/Canopy/canopy_hinge.jpg
Uploaded by : pat_panzera <panzera@...>
Description : Canopy

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/files/Jim%20Patillo-%20%20N46JP%20Q200/Canopy/canopy_hinge.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

pat_panzera <panzera@...>


Re: Great flying airplanes!

Imagine50@...
 

I agree, get the plane finished and flying and all those little changes you
think you need won't seem so important. I have been planning to do some wing
tip mods and repaint my plane for over two years now and haven't been able to
force myself to take the plane out of service to do the work. I just keep
flying the darn thing. Were else can you fly a plane with so much performance
for so little.
Allan N59RJ


Re: Q-1 - How much Hp is needed

Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 1/1/02 4:44:17 PM Mountain Standard Time,
RMARIETTA@... writes:


Raven of Boulder CO is working on the 3 cyclinder, 4 cycle, water cooled,
laid hortz. with a redrive that is designed to use the same egine mount as
the Rotax 503. HP-45-50, 90 lbs.
They have been working with this engine for some time, just recently using
it
in the hort. position.
I've got 3 of these motors in the shop (#128 as pulled from the
vehicle) and I had originally planed to do the same thing long before I saw
Ravens' version. Kind of a Q-1 version of the Rabbit I'm going to put in my
Q-2. If they can get this done at #90 without lopping of the third cylinder
I think 9.98 m/sec needs to be revised a bit.
There will be a flood of BD-5 builders waiting outside their doors if
they could pull this off.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Think outside the box......Fly in the envelope

Leon McAtee
Q-2/turbo VW Rabbit GTI/G-60
Q-1//3 Cyl Diahatsu Diesel???


Re: Great flying airplanes

Hot Wings
 

In a message dated 1/1/02 11:00:32 AM Mountain Standard Time,
panzera@... writes:


I have a Type IV core engine available cheap...

Pat
I have enough, 7+, but my nephew is still looking for a ' vair core.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Think outside the box......Fly in the envelope

Leon McAtee
Q-2/turbo VW Rabbit GTI/G-60
Q-1//???????????????


Forward Opening vs Sliding Canopy

david.cyr@...
 

Mike,
There are benefits to both systems I guess. Given the work required to do the
forward opening canopy, perhaps I should consider the sliding approach. Either
would be an improvement over the clam shell! Are there plans and/or a kit for a
"slider" that operates (slides) well?
Dave Cyr
======================== Happy and Safe New Year to All! ===================
From: mbrowner1@...
Subject: Re: Re: Forward Opening Canopy Plans

Thanks Dave,

BTW, a couple of summers ago I flew in Tom Moore's Q200 and Bob Malecheck's
Q200. Tom has the fwd hinged canopy and Bob has the sliding canopy. I was
going to go with the fwd hinged canopy till I rode in Bob's plane. On a summer
day near Dallas Bob and I were able to taxi out with the canopy cracked and we
had a nice cool blast of air on us all the way. It also removes easily for
access to the back side of the instrument panel. I'm going with the sliding
canopy.

Mike Brown


Re: sliding BROWNer

JMasal@...
 

In a message dated 1/1/02 4:56:32 PM Central Standard Time,
shoskins@... writes:


none of these designs are any good when the
plane is upside down.
A good .o2. Been there, done that too... and some form of cutter is vital as
you will not kick your way out.


Re: sliding BROWNer

JMasal@...
 

In a message dated 1/1/02 4:56:32 PM Central Standard Time,
shoskins@... writes:


none of these designs are any good when the
plane is upside down.


Re: sliding BROWNer

JMasal@...
 

In a message dated 1/1/02 4:25:05 PM Central Standard Time,
mdwyer@... writes:


type it looks like it would be a little harder to get in
and out of the plane.
I agree. That's the downside of the parallelogram and the forward hinge with
pistons. QAC was designing for a wide variety of occupants.