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

Thanks Jay. I'm in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, but the Q2 is at Parkland Airport which is 3 hours north, just outside Edmonton. Once I finish off the High Performance Rating I can move the airplane

Very nice work Brent. Thanks for posting your info and story about your plane. You are definitely doing everything right. Where are you located? Cheers, Jay Tri-Q2 N8WQ, 190 hours Grand Junction,

Hello everyone, as requested I will introduce my Q2. It is serial #62 and was completed in 1984. It's been a bit of a hangar queen in that it only has 180 hrs on it. I am the third owner, the builder

I am aware of the Phase 1 requirements depending on powerplant. Indeed, with the usual suspects 25 hours is the requirement. This why in part I will not claim the aircraft as either a Rutan Q2 nor

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

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

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

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

I had informed my PAI about my intent to build a quickie 2 seater. He shared that he is an experimental enthusiast himself and would help me with my inspection, airworthiness paperwork requests etc.

This reminds me of a conversation with Jim in that we were thinking I am landing too slow. This could be causing my issues last year on my landings. I was about 78mph across the numbers and slowing

Chris, I don't know if it's any help but here are my numbers, in mph. Downwind: Fast enough to impress the tower. Abeam the numbers:. 110 Base: 95 Final: 90 Across the numbers: 85 Touchdown: Don't be

It was mentioned in Kitplanes Magazine. The maze of US On-Line Airworthiness Certification was also addressed. Your correct about the bureaucrats. One of the factors I do not like when working in an

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

My own thoughts as well Phil. Kiss..make and keep her simple. Aerodynamics will offer more at less cost and much less overall maintenance. Sure..pushing hp will gain, mostly in climb. It for sure

I am thinking what the elevator, say on the more commonly known Cessna, Pipers, etc., do. They are on the tail, not the wing, and their function it to change the angle of attack of the wing. The

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

Brent...and others here...in the works is a change to the required 40 hour Phase 1 flight testing process within the States. Not sure where the status is now, but the EAA Flight Test Manual is the

Brent-----------  If I use the fuselage in my calculations, along with my extended wing and canard I am a bit under the high performance rating.  If they don't accept this, I would think I would be

Ryan, I have a fuel injector mounted on each intake tube. Here is path each drop of fuel takes: Header>aft, behind pilot>Walbro fuel pump>10 micron high pressure filter>forward, out to