Date   

Re: q-1 with rotax 503

denpau@...
 

I don't have a picture but I assume it is slightly larger than the 48 cube
Onan. There should be identifying numbers on the engines. If I remember
correctly "B48M" identifies the smaller engine.

Dennis of Georgia
once upon a time: Dennis of Homestead Florida


New for Sale Ad

Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
 

I just put up another Q2 for sale at the web site.

http://quickiebuilders.org/forsale.html

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974


Re: Flight Report

Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
 

You are welcome Mark. My pleasure.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 45.7 hours
Luana, IA.

On Feb 20, 2007, at 11:15 PM, Mark A. Pearson wrote:

Kevin:
I've missed your flight reports. Thanks for them. I've had some
medical issues lately that led me to think about giving it up, but
as they have responded to tx.and now with your report, I at least
hope to get back to building this Spring.

Mark Pearson
Q1
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Boddicker
To: Q-LIST
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flight Report

I just couldn't resist.
Today I went flying for the first time in six weeks. Last flight was
6 Jan 07.
Today I flew just for the love of it. No tests. No Plan. Just fun.
TO was normal from 17. Left the pattern to the east. Flew over home.
Then I headed further east. OUT of my test area for the first time.
Flew over the Mississippi river at Prairie Du Chein WI. The river is
frozen over. It has been WELL below zero for over over a month, off
and on. Mostly on. Reports have it that ice is 12 to 18 inches thick.
The reason I bring this up, as I was over the river, I thought it
would be a good place for emergency landing if needed. Then I thought
about the springs, thin ice, slushy snow, cold water. Glad I did not
have to find out.
Back west over home again. Then 240° back to the airport. Got there
and decided I had not had enough, and headed south to the next town.
Then back again.
Entered the pattern for 17 downwind. Approach was good. Ballooned
after touching down.
Experience, and my friends have taught me to just go around. Did.
Added power and flew right out of trouble. Next approach was very
nice. Touch down was good, added power again and went for another.
Third landing was also good. It wanted to fly after touchdown, so I
reflexed the ailerons TE down. Puts weight on the nose, stays on the
ground.
Damn I'm lucky!
Keep building, it only gets better!
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 45.7 hours
Luana, IA.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Re: q-1 with rotax 503

DENNIS GONZALEZ <edge540gas@...>
 

do you have a picture of the 60 c.i. engine, I have a couple of onan engines that I don't know what they are, it might help ya.........


Dennis in S. Fla.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
Leonardo da Vinci. the ingenious-eer

----- Original Message ----
From: "denpau@..." <denpau@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:10:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Isaksson Roger said,

"Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's."

"The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close
as possible from the original plans."

"My opinion, (take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly."

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

I have the 48 Cu inch Onan in my Quickie, with some mods (mikuni carb,
reground cam, dual ignition, firewall mounted remote oil filter, cooling air
ducted under and around the cylinders, to cool the exhaust side first, as Onan
does from the factory. Part of the air is directed around the oil sump for low
oil temps.
I had thoughts of getting the 60 cube Onan later for the extra power.

BUT ! ! ! ! !

All of the internet sites that I have visited that sell this type (industrial)
of engine report that Onan has stopped making the flat head engine and there
are none available. Maybe there are a few to be found some where, but it might
take some searching.

The Jabiru looks great, but I'm not rich.

Dennis








____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

denpau@...
 

Isaksson Roger said,

"Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's."

"The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close
as possible from the original plans."

"My opinion, (take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly."

_____________________________________________________________________________

I have the 48 Cu inch Onan in my Quickie, with some mods (mikuni carb,
reground cam, dual ignition, firewall mounted remote oil filter, cooling air
ducted under and around the cylinders, to cool the exhaust side first, as Onan
does from the factory. Part of the air is directed around the oil sump for low
oil temps.
I had thoughts of getting the 60 cube Onan later for the extra power.

BUT ! ! ! ! !

All of the internet sites that I have visited that sell this type (industrial)
of engine report that Onan has stopped making the flat head engine and there
are none available. Maybe there are a few to be found some where, but it might
take some searching.

The Jabiru looks great, but I'm not rich.

Dennis


Re: Flight Report

Mark A. Pearson <wlkabout@...>
 

Kevin:
I've missed your flight reports. Thanks for them. I've had some medical issues lately that led me to think about giving it up, but as they have responded to tx.and now with your report, I at least hope to get back to building this Spring.

Mark Pearson
Q1

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Boddicker
To: Q-LIST
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flight Report


I just couldn't resist.
Today I went flying for the first time in six weeks. Last flight was
6 Jan 07.
Today I flew just for the love of it. No tests. No Plan. Just fun.
TO was normal from 17. Left the pattern to the east. Flew over home.
Then I headed further east. OUT of my test area for the first time.
Flew over the Mississippi river at Prairie Du Chein WI. The river is
frozen over. It has been WELL below zero for over over a month, off
and on. Mostly on. Reports have it that ice is 12 to 18 inches thick.
The reason I bring this up, as I was over the river, I thought it
would be a good place for emergency landing if needed. Then I thought
about the springs, thin ice, slushy snow, cold water. Glad I did not
have to find out.
Back west over home again. Then 240° back to the airport. Got there
and decided I had not had enough, and headed south to the next town.
Then back again.
Entered the pattern for 17 downwind. Approach was good. Ballooned
after touching down.
Experience, and my friends have taught me to just go around. Did.
Added power and flew right out of trouble. Next approach was very
nice. Touch down was good, added power again and went for another.
Third landing was also good. It wanted to fly after touchdown, so I
reflexed the ailerons TE down. Puts weight on the nose, stays on the
ground.
Damn I'm lucky!
Keep building, it only gets better!
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 45.7 hours
Luana, IA.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Flight Report

Kevin Boddicker <trumanst@...>
 

I just couldn't resist.
Today I went flying for the first time in six weeks. Last flight was
6 Jan 07.
Today I flew just for the love of it. No tests. No Plan. Just fun.
TO was normal from 17. Left the pattern to the east. Flew over home.
Then I headed further east. OUT of my test area for the first time.
Flew over the Mississippi river at Prairie Du Chein WI. The river is
frozen over. It has been WELL below zero for over over a month, off
and on. Mostly on. Reports have it that ice is 12 to 18 inches thick.
The reason I bring this up, as I was over the river, I thought it
would be a good place for emergency landing if needed. Then I thought
about the springs, thin ice, slushy snow, cold water. Glad I did not
have to find out.
Back west over home again. Then 240° back to the airport. Got there
and decided I had not had enough, and headed south to the next town.
Then back again.
Entered the pattern for 17 downwind. Approach was good. Ballooned
after touching down.
Experience, and my friends have taught me to just go around. Did.
Added power and flew right out of trouble. Next approach was very
nice. Touch down was good, added power again and went for another.
Third landing was also good. It wanted to fly after touchdown, so I
reflexed the ailerons TE down. Puts weight on the nose, stays on the
ground.
Damn I'm lucky!
Keep building, it only gets better!
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 45.7 hours
Luana, IA.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Looking to buy Q2/Q200/TRI-Q

Larry Severson
 

Maximum thickness is at about 40%. Furthermore, most of the documents I
can find on line treat the LS(1)-0417) as a laminar flow airfoil.
Air foil optimizer, and others I have seen, do not list it as laminar flow, but it does meet a need and it doesn't need VGs to prevent separation when dirty.

I do not claim that the LS(1) is the best possible airfoil for the Q2
canard, but then John Roncz didn't work for QAC.
As designed, it also allows a greater gross weight.


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

130 MPH with the 1835cc VW, where did you get that number???

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503


Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one.

True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive
experience with it, in the Q1.

I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around
110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much.

Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I
assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package
instead.

I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a
half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse.

The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many
kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to
an excellent kitplane choice.

The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many
engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette.

2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very
compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than
it's worth.

Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction
gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound.

2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan
that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a
little extra weight on one end of the prop flange).

4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close
enough that smooth running can happen.

There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1.

Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small
enough.

VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft
design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design
limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an
option.

You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared
to deal with.

Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than
the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with
reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power.

The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines,
and they grew larger as they went.

The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with
the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked
into first, but even there the weight and size was too much.

There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the
4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of
bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was
just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it
looked like an airplane engine.

Best was a fraction over 17 HP.

By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good
looking engine, that's all.

Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same
size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're
back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same,
using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version.

According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had
an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it.

The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie
size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a
bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look
for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem.

One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could
be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead
of over head valves.

That would :
1. Decrease the weight
2. Decrease very much the width.
3. Exhaust can be routed straight down,
4. Intake can be made into an updraft.
5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses

There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare
engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed.

Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally
sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned
out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this
can be tamed.

I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size
close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real"
airplane engine).

I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to
get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it.

It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much
machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect.

One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is
an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not.

A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we
jut goooota have the 100 HP.

Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for
worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in
the context that I answered the question.

There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his
Q1.

I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front.

The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from
reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design
you are the better chance of success.

A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V
engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay
( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and
size limits.

When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a
cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got
a monster in there and it's beyond the design.

Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the
plans.

































Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of
"fact" come
from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However;
having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say
that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate.

"As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse,
but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for
a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan."

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch
Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit
manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a
much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch
wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it
works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a
2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as
close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out
now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at
3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for
worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very
wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again,
you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1,
that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a
clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original
as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to
experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them
in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft
building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but
engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no
more expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the
speed increased

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and
hotel bargains.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.





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


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
 

Sorry, one like one engine and another one proffesses another one.

True, the VW have been flown, and you have had as I can see a positive experience with it, in the Q1.

I didnt say it can't be done, you got 130 MPH , Onan should be around 110-115, of course that is a difference, but not too much.

Climb, you got some really good figures, way better then the Onan, but I assume you sacrified in stall, and landing speed, with that heavier package instead.

I'm not arguing or starting a war here, as some suggested, a whole or a half VW have been flown as I said, for better or for worse.

The VW in itself is probably one of the most used engines flown in many kitplanes, and the engine have been developed and refined over the years to an excellent kitplane choice.

The Q1, with it's size weight and configuration can't take too many engines that will fit in the aircraft body siluette.

2 strokes have been used , but even though the 2 stroke have a very compact size, the "around" things, usually takes more space and weight than it's worth.

Tuned exhausts and intakes that many times are barrel like, reduction gears, and an awful "ringa ding...ding...ding..." exhaust sound.

2 cyl 4 strokes (like the Onan) needs to be balanced, externally, (Onan that came from the kit plane manufacturer when the Q1 kit was sold, had a little extra weight on one end of the prop flange).

4 cyl 4 strokes like the full VW run with all it's power pulses close enough that smooth running can happen.

There just isn't any ideal engine for the Q1.

Ideal would be a 4 cylinder box type 4 cycle aircooled that is small enough.

VW either a half (2 cyl)or a whole (4cyl), is wider then the aircraft design, and I presume that if you are willing to go beyond the design limists, (many have, as I can see you have done successfully) , this is an option.

You WILL however enter into the equation much more then many are prepared to deal with.

Myself I have spend a lot of time looking for engine options other than the Onan, and the pickings are pretty slim, if you want to stay with reasonable weight and dimensions, and still get at least reasonable power.

The current VW engine is the last in line of the developed VW engines, and they grew larger as they went.

The smallest VW the 1100 was an engine (no parts are interchangeable with the 1600 engine, the basis of the current VW "kitplane engine") I looked into first, but even there the weight and size was too much.

There are some military surplus engines that are very interesting, one the 4A032 is a neat and small four cyl aircooled fourstroke. I did a lot of bench testing and devlopment on that engine, until I realized, that it was just too small, you can't get a lot of power out of 32 cu inch, even if it looked like an airplane engine.

Best was a fraction over 17 HP.

By design it was very hard to do a bore and stroke, so it remained a good looking engine, that's all.

Bigger size military surplus engines , like the 4AO84 is about the same size as the VW 1100. That comes in a half engine size, the 2AO42, but we're back to an engine that sticks out, as the dimensions in width is the same, using the same cylinders and cylinderheads on the 2 and 4 cyl version.

According to some old reports I read long ago, one of the first Q1's had an 4AO84, and broke some kind of record with it.

The problem seems to be, that if you are looking for an engine of thie size and weight close to what the original Onan had, but are looking for a bit more power, you will not get into a 4 cyl arrangement, but have to look for something that is 2 cyl, with that you get the width problem.

One possible solution, however, way over my financial possibility, could be to take a bored and stroked VW, engine, and arrange a flat head instead of over head valves.

That would :
1. Decrease the weight
2. Decrease very much the width.
3. Exhaust can be routed straight down,
4. Intake can be made into an updraft.
5. Maintain 4 cyl even spread power pulses

There is one engine that is next on my investigation, it's a somewhat rare engine, 4 cyl 4 stroke opposed.

Thre is an engine called 4AO53. A 53 cu inch over head valve, originally sitting in the Military Mule under production by Willis, the engine turned out to be a problem, but with todays fuel delivery and ignition sytems, this can be tamed.

I should be able to get in the vicinity of 27 HP, have the weight and size close to the original airplane design, (and I get the looks of a "real" airplane engine).

I get back about this as soon as I know better on this thing. I need to get hold of a run out core, take it to my work bench and dissect it.

It might be another dead end, if there are no thrust bearings, or too much machinery on the engine for it to take gyroscopic effect.

One of the biggest traps in airplanes as well as the neighbours BMW, it is an urge to get heavier and more powerful engine all the time. Needed or not.

A Piper Cub flies just about as well on an 80 as a 100 Hp engine, but we jut goooota have the 100 HP.

Sure we can bolt on a full VW up front , it will fly, (for better or for worse) , nothing wrong with that per see, but I will ask you to consider in the context that I answered the question.

There was a person that had an inquire about a suitable engine, for his Q1.

I just wouldnt recommend that he hang one of those things up front.

The experience of anyone on this board is very hard to know just from reading a letter, and in general I would say that the closer to the design you are the better chance of success.

A 60 Cu inch Onan is close to a bolt on operation, some of the new V engines offered by engine manfacturers, will get more power, and might stay ( get measurements and weight before you buy) within acceptable weight and size limits.

When you have to cut a hole in the side of aircraft, just to fit a cylinder, Move a firewall just to get the balance straight, you know you got a monster in there and it's beyond the design.

Again nothing wrong with that, but for general purposes, stick with the plans.

































Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come
from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However;
having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say
that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate.

"As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse,
but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for
a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan."

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch
Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit
manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a
much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch
wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it
works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a
2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as
close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out
now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at
3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for
worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very
wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again,
you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1,
that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a
clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original
as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to
experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them
in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft
building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but
engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no
more expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the
speed increased

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and
hotel bargains.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.


Re: Looking to buy Q2/Q200/TRI-Q 200 for sale

Bartholomew Hanson Fisher
 

build or fly?
After owning and flying for many years it is with great sadness I am offering my pride and joy up for sale 321AQ over 800hr of proven flight time. I am selling only in parts. She is a nice Tri Q200 with the larger Scott swinger nose gear, Ls 1 canard
1. Complete airframe minus cowlings
2. Complete 0200 with lycon high compression pistons professionally built with vary low time. By Michigan Aviation.
3. The panel will go up on Ebay. If interested call 734-320-1026 Thanks Bart




Quoting Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>:

Regarding LS1 vs GU canard, I think it is more accurate to say the GU has
laminar flow over a larger portion of the wing surface, not that the LS1 is
"not laminar flow."

Regarding weight, the weight difference (if any) of the GU vs LS1 is
insignificant. The real differences in weight come from surface finish,
added features and engine weight. Too many people put full panels and
redundant systems in planes that are only flown day-VFR. The weight range
of finished Q2s and Q200s is enormous (same problem affects RVs and other
popular models). Keep it light, it will fly better.

Mike Perry

At 08:50 AM 2/19/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:
[snip]

Seldom mentioned is the fact that the LS1 canard, which is not
laminar flow - removing the need for VGs in rain, was forced to
include a carbon fiber spar for strength due to the wing profile
thinness. This allows the plane to fly at a higher gross weight. The
LS1 also requires sparrow strainers to ease elevator control
effectiveness. The wing is draggier and the sparrow strainer doesn't
help. Unless the canard if rough, the GU bird will always be faster
for a given HP, but unless it has additional layers of spar caps, it
will be weaker (hence the 100 lb max gross weight difference),
especially near the tips.

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
<mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com>larry2@...




Re: Engine alternatives for a Q1

Jan Safranek <jany77@...>
 

i m makeing decision between 1/2 vw ,verner and hks 700 since no body give me any reasonable answer about engine ill waiting untill i need engine i think that sooner or later we find some good choice on market you can check this link
http://www.ultralightmarket.com/results.asp?view=Gruppe&Gruppe=8

davedrosen <d2r@...> wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with a Global Rotary Power inc. engine?
Does anyone have a mount design?
How about other engines? Preferably 4 stroke.

How about Verner? Same questions.
Thanks in advance
Dave R.
Texas
Q1


Engine alternatives for a Q1

davedrosen <d2r@...>
 

Does anyone have any experience with a Global Rotary Power inc. engine?
Does anyone have a mount design?
How about other engines? Preferably 4 stroke.

How about Verner? Same questions.
Thanks in advance
Dave R.
Texas
Q1


Re: Looking to buy Q2/Q200/TRI-Q

Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

At 12:30 PM 2/19/2007 -0800, Larry Severson wrote:
[snip]
No wing that is dirty is laminar flow; however, the GU profile is
listed as laminar flow. The LS1 is not. The first key is where the
point of maximum thickness appears on the cord. A laminar flow wing
will always have that thickness in the range of 40-50% of cord. Most
non-laminar flow wings have maximum thickness at 25% of cord from the
leading edge. This fits the LS1 wing contour.
Please check your facts before you post. This has a drawing of the NASA
LS(1)-0417 (aka GA (W)-1):

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~huhui/paper/2007/AIAA-2007-0275.pdf

Maximum thickness is at about 40%. Furthermore, most of the documents I
can find on line treat the LS(1)-0417) as a laminar flow airfoil.

I do not claim that the LS(1) is the best possible airfoil for the Q2
canard, but then John Roncz didn't work for QAC. (I think that's the
correct spelling but I've seen Ronz)

Mike Perry


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Jan Safranek <jany77@...>
 

looks like i sterted war here ,ok then ill ask different way what is the best choise of engine for quickie q-1 thanks

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come
from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However;
having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say
that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate.

"As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse,
but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for
a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan."

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch
Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit
manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a
much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch
wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it
works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a
2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as
close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out
now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at
3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for
worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very
wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again,
you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1,
that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a
clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original
as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to
experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them
in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft
building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but
engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no
more expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the
speed increased

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and
hotel bargains.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Jon Finley <jon@...>
 

Whoa there Roger, where in the world did the following bit of "fact" come
from??? I would certainly agree that a 4 cyl VW is not ideal. However;
having flowing behind one in a Q1 for some 300 hours, I would have to say
that you need to recheck your information as it is far from accurate.

"As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse,
but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for
a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan."

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Isaksson Roger
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503


Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch
Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit
manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a
much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch
wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it
works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a
2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as
close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out
now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at
3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for
worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very
wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow
over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it
compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but
not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again,
you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1,
that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a
clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original
as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to
experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them
in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft
building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but
engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.



Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no
more expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the
speed increased

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and
hotel bargains.





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


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
 

A full VW engine is a simple and perfect match for the Q1. 800+fpm
climb, 130+mph cruise, 3.6gph fuel use. Super visibility.

Ryan

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft>


--- In Q-LIST@..., Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> wrote:

Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu
Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit
manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version,
with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27
HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch
wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized,
so it works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient
than a 2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as
close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves
out now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at
3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for
worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are
very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the
cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the
flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency,
something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a
bit better, but not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here
again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw
power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a
Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont
have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as
original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you
might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly,
stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put
them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental
aircraft building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but
engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.



Jon Finley jon@... wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more
expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can
to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf
Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and
onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw
just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with
dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax
dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience
with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a
kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours
searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley jon@... wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the
whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit
of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to
get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals
and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf
Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if
the
speed increased

Jon Finley jon@... wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125
mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so
long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably
close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf
Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight
and hotel bargains.



Re: q-1 with rotax 503

Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
 

Onan actually have a history of pretty high hours Q1's.

The Onan sold at the time of the kits being manufactured was a 48 Cu Inch Onan, Original HP between 18 and 20, and later tweeked ( by the kit manufactorer) to 22 HP.

Later a 60 Cu Inch Onan, was on the market, a 24 or 25 HP version, with a much more flat Torque curve, could probably be tweeked to 26-27 HP.

Difference is, shaft diameter ( to prop) with, (about 1 and 3/4 inch wider), other than that it is a bolt on.

Onan have thrust bearings, (well a washer, but it is oilpressurized, so it works the same).

You however still will get a flat head.

A couple of points on that.

1. Less efficient than an over head valve, but much more efficient than a 2 stroke.

2. Very safe engine, you can not drop a valve in a flat head engine.

Take a pick on what you prefere.

The 60 Cu Inch is probably the best upgrade you can do and still be as close as possible from the original plans.

There is a lot of newer 4 cycle 2 cyl V engines, with over head valves out now, that might be a very interesting option.

Briggs is doing a Vanguard series, V engine, where they claim 35 HP at 3600 RPM.

That one can be direct driven.

As for 2 or 4 cyl VW engines, they have been flown for better or for worse, but very little performance gain have been recorded, They are very wide for a Q1, and you will have to design in "cheeks" on the cowling.

It does something to the overall design, possibly it's disturbing the flow over the canard in such a way, that it loses it's efficiency, something it compensates with higher HP, so the overall performance is a bit better, but not much better than the Onan.

There have been some very successful V W designs though, but here again, you get a lot of weight that you have to compensate with raw power.

I've seen ONE picture ONE TIME, and dont know more than that, about a Q1, that had a small aircooled DIESEL engine hooked up, up front. Dont have a clue what it did, how it did or what became out of it.

Unless you are interested in engine experiments, stay as close as original as possible, If you have a genuine interest in engines, you might want to experiment a bit on it, if you want to build and fly, stick to what works.

A lot of aircraft builders have had airplane engine goals, that put them in a category of engine experimenter, as well as experimental aircraft building.

Some see it as one concept, as the whole package is up in the air, but engines are themselves a completely different animal.

My opinion, ( take it or leave it) get a 60 cu inch Onan, and fly.



Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote:
Then you might consider a 4 cylinder VW. Plenty of power and no more expense
than the half VW. You gotta watch the weight though - do what you can to
eliminate the heavy stuff.

Some more info on this at:
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Quickie/tabid/100/Default.aspx

Tom Solan's airplane at:
http://www.greatplainsas.com/vwtsolan.html

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks for advice ,but since the company who makes the kit is gone and onan
is underpovered engine and im not big fan of 2-strokes i chose 1/2 vw just
because i can go anywhere and buy 100ll gas ,i can have engine with dual
ignition ,starter ready to fly for same price even smaller than rotax dont
talk about how much the fuel and oil the rotax eats i have experience with
rotax from past ,building q-1 for me is something differnet than buy a kit a
build there is lot a stuff im searching for i spend more hours searching for
parts details then spend on building

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: Jan,

A half-VW is much different than a 503 - horsepower does not tell the whole
tale. There were a small number of Global powered Q1's. None of the
reports that I have heard were "positive". Positive meaning that
performance was not a huge increase over the Onan. I think I remember
hearing 10mph and 300fpm but that is from memory. There is quite a bit of
documentation on this in the older newsletters. You would do well to get
them and study up. Jim Masal (on this list) flew one of the Globals and is
definitely worth talking to about this.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
Jan Safranek
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

thanks im thinking use 1/2 vw around same hp i was just wondering if the
speed increased

Jon Finley <jon@...> wrote: It depends on how hard you
are willing to run the Rotax. If memory serves
correctly, I ran my single carb 503 at 5700-5800 rpm and got about 125 mph.
Running it up to 6300-6400 would yeild close to 145mph. It's been so long
that I wouldn't quote those numbers as fact but they are reasonably close.

Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 Legacy
http://www.finleyweb.net
Mid-Valley Airpark (E98), Los Lunas, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...]On Behalf Of
jan
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] q-1 with rotax 503

i have question if the cruise speed is increased with rotax 503 if so
for how much thanks



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.


Re: Looking to buy Q2/Q200/TRI-Q

Larry Severson
 

At 11:14 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:

Regarding LS1 vs GU canard, I think it is more accurate to say the GU has
laminar flow over a larger portion of the wing surface, not that the LS1 is
"not laminar flow."
No wing that is dirty is laminar flow; however, the GU profile is listed as laminar flow. The LS1 is not. The first key is where the point of maximum thickness appears on the cord. A laminar flow wing will always have that thickness in the range of 40-50% of cord. Most non-laminar flow wings have maximum thickness at 25% of cord from the leading edge. This fits the LS1 wing contour.

In addition to reducing drag due to airflow turbulence, the laminar flow wing actually has an increased area of low pressure (50% vs 25%) in front of the wing causing a slightly greater pull on the wing in the forward direction. This is the result of the increasing thickness of the wing speeding the airflow and reducing the pressure. One problem with the laminar flow design is that it requires a polished surface to generate the design lift. Any disturbance of the polished surface, rain, dust, bugs, etc. will cause a loss of lift that in some cases can become severe. The use of VGs at the point of max thickness will prevent the airflow separation causing the loss of lift. As long as the VGs are of a size that they do not exceed the thickness of the boundary layer, they have very little impact on drag or speed at cruise.

Clue: don't take off with a GU canard unless the canard has been cleaned and dried!


Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...


Re: carburetors

raoborg@...
 

Thank s. Raoul

--- jdoyle1941@... wrote:

From: "James Doyle" <jdoyle1941@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] carburetors
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:44:25 -0600

No, sorry I sold it on e-bay some time ago.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: raoborg@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] carburetors


Hi James. Do you still have the EFS2 available? Thank you Raoul

--- jdoyle1941@... wrote:

From: "James Doyle" <jdoyle1941@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] carburetors
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:07:34 -0600

I have an Ellison EFS-2 that I ran for 900+ hours on a C-85 that worked well. It is for sale but I would talk to Ellison about using it on a Jab 3300. If you are interested contact me off the list at jdoyle1941@...

Jim Doyle
----- Original Message -----
From: noosaflyingclub
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:34 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] carburetors

Hi,
I am looking at throttle body carbs as an option for the Jab 3300
because the Bing runs rich above 2800rpm and cannot be leaned off and I
think that is costing power and fuel.
Aero flow carbs reads OK but does anyone have experience with these? (I
think the needle is straight.)Is a fuel bowl type preferred? What is
the faithful choice for the 0-200?
Is it a Marvel Schebler?.
Any ideas are welcome.
And have a safe and prosperous new year.
Peter H

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006

----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date: 12/31/2006



__________________________________________________________
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.










_____________________________________________________________
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.