|
Re: Q2 Rescue Project
I am the kind of person that likes to hear options and hear what others have done. I guess in terms of pilots vs builders, I haven't really figured that out but maybe in the middle because I like building too. Having said that, I have no interest reinventing the Quickie so ...
At this point I am leaning towards an O-200 with the SDS EFI, VGs on the GU canard, glass panel and some of the handy little mods I saw on your plane (tank fill, turtle deck, ...) Too far Off? Really what I am missing is sitting in one, hopefully yours soon and truly fall in love with the Quickie all around. Deeply appreciate your input and help, Robert -- Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid (408) 805-5450 www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos www.theflyingfriscos.com Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Ryszard Zadow
< 2000 hr TBO refers to the bottom end. Cylinders are routinely replaced many times before an “overhaul”>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Nope. That statement doesnt apply to most the engine I’ve had and many that come through my shop.
On Apr 19, 2022, at 12:14, One Sky Dog via groups.io <Oneskydog@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Ryszard Zadow
Of course so read it
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Apr 19, 2022, at 11:02, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Fiberglass Condition?
Took some closeup pictures of the Quickie I am looking at rescuing ...
     What's your take? Next step ... Tapping all around looking for delaminations. Any volunteers 😉 Thanks for everyone's interest and feedback, fellas like a great community to grow into and get to know. -- Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid (408) 805-5450 www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos www.theflyingfriscos.com Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Apples and oranges. 2000 hr TBO refers to the bottom end. Cylinders are routinely replaced many times before an “overhaul”
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Lots of engine failures are the result of maintenance induced failures (MIF) both certified and auto conversions. Most auto conversion failures are the systems supporting the engine; fuel, ecu, reduction drives etc. Duty cycle has a lot to do with it to the VW heads were designed to dissipate 28 hp with a safety factor of 2 so 56 hp of heat dissipation is the ultimate limit. VW converters were selling 60+hp conversions with the 5 minute WOT climb limit. No wonder they only lasted 500 hrs. My shared Cessna has over 2400 hours on it since overhaul but has had countless cylinders changed that do not count. Log book entry everything is fine. My Lycoming failed because several A&P IA’s overlooked changing oil lines for 30 years MIF. But it had several cylinder changes over the years also. My Corvair had 75 hrs on it before vapor locking the Ellison TBI during a 5000 ft climb. Not the engines fault but mine for the FWF design. I made a design mistake. Everything I have ever flown has tried to kill me, and most people get killed behind certified engines. My you tube channel
On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 2:47 PM, Ryszard Zadow <ryszardzadow@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Q2 Rescue Project
Hey Robert, I look forward to meeting you in the next month or so to look over those airplane bones you are thinking about.
The reason you got the reaction you did, is some of us have been in Quickie World for a very long time. We’ve seen it all. It seems every couple of years we get newbies pop up on this list and want to start reinventing the Quickie. That’s fine but it may be
a hard sell here. We have 3 types of people in this group.
We’ve found the 0200 engine to be very reliable and hard to kill. They work, period. My 0200 has never let me down. Paul Spackman tested and proved the 6-cylinder Jabiru engine (we ran together in Laughlin) The Jab-6 wasn't
as fast as my pumped 0200. Jon Finley tested and proved the Suburu but spent many years doing so. These designs and engines take a long time and as Jay said, require a higher skill set.
If your objective is to fly a Q sooner than later, stick with proven, reliable engines.
Regards,
Jim
N46JP - Q200
1,856 hours
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> on behalf of Robert Schmid <robert@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:22:36 AM To: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 Rescue Project Thanks Jay, I'll reach out to Martin.
-- Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid (408) 805-5450 www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos www.theflyingfriscos.com Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
ryan goodman
I'm going to chime in here. The absolutist answers are not helpful to conversation or evolution of technology. And to be frank, the representation of aircraft engines as being so damn reliable, is not very genuine. Even more so when you push the idea of TBOs. The main differentiator here is the fact that the traditional aircraft engines have mostly consistent installs and 70 years or more to work out their kinks. UL is a perfect example of a new aircraft engine, and they have experienced more than their fair share of failures to try and get to a safer more consistently reliable product. Ryzard, you are making general statements about failures while negating specific statements about successes. Im not sure how that holds up as an argument. Though I agree with you that there are far more failures in conversation than successes, we are almost exclusively talking about individuals putting together some unique set of components to create their own unique install. This is not the same as taking a core engine product and going through the engineering process to adapt it with proper planning, testing and execution. That said, there have been those who have also pretended to do these things and sold products that left their unknowing purchasers to act as test pilots, often to terrible results. The willingness of those in this community to get wide eyed and believe hype in the interest of saving a few dollars or feeling like you are some sort of innovator is very real and gets preyed upon far too often. At the end of the day, I personally believe that the best way to handle these conversation is to not stifle the questions or the pursuit, but to provide real world examples of successes and failures and to encourage proper sourcing of platforms, components and support systems based on real world requirements, and then to provide good advice on how the community can support effective engineering and testing to ensure that solutions are actually functional and well tested. The idea that we would only ever put faith in the technology of our great grandparents because it has a long track record is not helpful for the evolution of the industry. But at the same time, failure to encourage and mentor good engineering and testing practices will full on lead to both dangerous and discouraging results more often than is good. That too will hurt the industry. We have to support good practices in development, not just known good quantities. But ultimately, I think the idea that stifling conversation and discourse on things that still demand work and improvement is not helpful to anyone. Even outside the core of the unique conversation it only serves to tell people they cant ask question and explore their curiosities. I will say out loud that as an engineering manager for a major defense firm, if I had any employee that tried to silence ideas(no matter how off beat), they would be in my office before the meeting was over. We value discourse and evolution of thought through collaboration, not the continued pushing of old ideas, at the expense of creativity and good hard engineering. Sometimes you end up right back at the old tried and true solution, but more often than not better things present themselves. Remember, all the craziest stuff we have done as a species, often started with a massive amount of very large, very public failures. Perhaps we should have just abandoned those ideas at the first signs of trouble.
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 10:02:18 AM MDT, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
Ryszard. Did you even read my note? Cheers, Jay -----Original Message----- From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:48 AM To: main@q-list.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2? You guys keep pointing out one success here, one success there. Once again, exceptions don’t change the rule. I agree It IS a personal preference just like smoking cigarettes is personal preference. Some people have smoked all their life and lived to be a 100, thise are the exceptions BUT, the facts prove smoking kills people. If that’s your preference fine but it’s disingenuous to proclaim auto engines are a good choice when the facts prove otherwise. RZ > On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose. > > If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own. > > I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills. > > The original QAC plans exist and are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon. > > Cheers, > Jay > > -----Original Message----- > From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM > To: main@Q-List.groups.io > Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2? > > Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912. > > I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago. > > I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences. > > Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Ryszard. Did you even read my note?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Cheers, Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ryszard Zadow Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:48 AM To: main@q-list.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2? You guys keep pointing out one success here, one success there. Once again, exceptions don’t change the rule. I agree It IS a personal preference just like smoking cigarettes is personal preference. Some people have smoked all their life and lived to be a 100, thise are the exceptions BUT, the facts prove smoking kills people. If that’s your preference fine but it’s disingenuous to proclaim auto engines are a good choice when the facts prove otherwise. RZ On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
I am with Ryzard and Rick on this topic. Experience and observations of others speaks volumes. You want to fly make it as simple and as tested by professionals as you can.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Bruce
On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28 AM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Ryszard Zadow
You guys keep pointing out one success here, one success there. Once again, exceptions don’t change the rule. I agree It IS a personal preference just like smoking cigarettes is personal preference. Some people have smoked all their life and lived to be a 100, thise are the exceptions BUT, the facts prove smoking kills people. If that’s your preference fine but it’s disingenuous to proclaim auto engines are a good choice when the facts prove otherwise.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
RZ
On Apr 19, 2022, at 10:28, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Hi Richard,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Not to weigh in on the automotive vs. aircraft engine issue, but the main concern you should have will be the installation of any engine you choose. If a particular engine has been installed before on the Q2, and hopefully numerous times, there should be some detailed firewall forward plans. If you cannot lay your hands on plans, you are basically on your own. I have a Jabiru in my Tri-Q2, but I was jump started on my installation by using the same engine mount made by the same guy that made Paul Spackman's (from Paul's original design), so at least I had that to get me going. I had to manually engineer everything else, including water cooled installation, wiring, controls, cowl mods, etc. This takes time and to a certain extent some additional skills. The original QAC plans exist and are easy to follow for the Revmaster, and the O-200. These are very detailed, right down to the baffling templates. Many people have installed them and are accessible and willing to help advise you. I would not go too far away from those engines, if you are wanting to get the project back in the air relatively soon. Cheers, Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Walterson Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:09 AM To: main@Q-List.groups.io Subject: Re: [Q-List] Modern Engines on Q2? Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912. I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago. I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences. Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Bill Allen
It seems to me that you got the info you asked for? 😊
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 17:18, Chris Walterson <dkeats@...> wrote: I don't want to get into an argument, but bashing auto engines is not --
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Chris Walterson
I don't want to get into an argument, but bashing auto engines is not helpfull. I have four airplanes. One with an airplane engine and three with auto convertions. I feel very comfortable flying behind an auto conversion.
Go to youtube and check out Russel Sherwood Glasair. Thousand hrs so far, 250 MPH on 202 Cubic inches. He beets most airplane engines twice his size. SDS ignition has a really good web site that has lots of info on auto engines, and refutes the mith that auto engines will not stand up. It's all personal preference.------------- Love my Subaru's------------------ Chris -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Chris Walterson
Robert--------- John Finley had a 2.2 Subaru in his Q2. I have a 2.5 Subaru Direct drive turbocharged in my Q200. A few fellows have the 912.
I have a Dragonfly with the 1.8 Subaru turbocharged. 600 hrs on the engine. Cost about $3000 to build twenty years ago. I have about $6,000 into the Q200 engine.. I'm not cheap, but frugal. They are all personal preferences. Keeping the "mental" in experimental-------------- Chris -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Ryszard Zadow
No one’s bashing auto engine. We’re just discussing reality. RZ
On Apr 19, 2022, at 02:20, Robert Schmid <robert@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Q2 Rescue Project
Thanks Jay, I'll reach out to Martin.
-- Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid (408) 805-5450 www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos www.theflyingfriscos.com Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Why does this question always have to become religious!?!? I made it clear in my initial ask NOT to bash car conversion engines and yet some here can't help themselves.
If this would be a FB group I'd delete these posts that don't answer my original question. But instead I'll ask you to please keep your engine bashings in other posts! For all the ones that listed engines used, THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT!!! -- Robert "TheFrisco" Schmid (408) 805-5450 www.facebook.com/TheFlyingFriscos www.theflyingfriscos.com Love building planes almost as much as flying. Latest completed build is "Loki", a Chinook Plus 2 bush plane.
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Fredd Baber
When we say “auto engines” are including things like Great Plaines VW conversions as well? Engines that are already air cooled?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks! Fredd Baber
On Apr 19, 2022, at 12:55 AM, Rick Hole via groups.io <r.hole@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Rick Hole
In my years at Velocity I worked with many builders and observed many more. Those who chose auto engines took at least three extra years in the installation and debugging. When they were ¨plowing new ground there was nobody they could call for help. Certainly not the manufacturer. They will claim liability issues and give no help. The more computer dependent the engine was the more difficult to get it running. Cooling was always a huge problem. In an auto a big radiator and several gallons of coolant is no big deal. On an airplane it is an issue. One builder prided himself on his own design ignition system. I worked so well on the ground. On first flight it killed him. One friend has been twenty years on his diesel project just on the engine. If a builder has a passion for engine work, the time to pursue it, and is willing to his himself and family, the choice is his. I would not go that route myself. I will say I have seen a few installations with several hundred hours on them. And more that have been converted back to conventional aircraft engines.
Rick Hole
|
|
|
|
Re: Modern Engines on Q2?
Ryszard Zadow
Exceptions don’t change the rule. Auto engnes don’t fly… I’ll go one step further…auto engines are dream killers. There’s no telling how many have wasted significant amounts of time wishing they were flying while struggling to make an auto conversion work. We have a Defiant that will never fly again because the builder was trying to use Mazda engines. He struggled so much that eventually he gave up. A lifetime of effort wasted when he could’ve been flying and enjoying his dream had he not been led down a path that somehow those Mazda engines would be superior . When we learned of this particular Defiant we barely got there in time. The builder was so frustrated he was going to burn it. He already burned the cowlings by the time we got there. If your dream is to fly dont go down that path. Auto engines are dream killers RZ
On Apr 18, 2022, at 18:24, Frankenbird Vern <smeshno1@...> wrote:
|
|
|