Date   

Re: tacho

Bruce Crain
 

Hi Neil,
I have a tach from Electronics International (in sport aviation) that
has a digital readout, plus an hour meter, plus time in route, plus max
rpm. It works off of 1 mag side with a 2nd side retro fitted (by E.I.)
to run off of my electronic ignition. I really like its accuracy and it
looks sexy. With any tach you might want to find a radio control person
with a hand held optical counter to check for accuracy at 1st. My 2
shillings worth.
Bruce Crain

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:35:24 +1300 Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
writes:
I'm about to to order a new tacho from Spruce..the Westach 3AT3-2
which
is a 3" analogue instrument that reads directly from the mag P lead.
Has anyone used one of these. I borrowed a tiny tach from a mate but
I'm
nit too impressed by the way it jumps around somewhat, so thats why I
thought I'd try something else.
Any comments would be appreciated
neil




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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


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


Re: Bedding Fittings

Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

Hey Dave,
I have bedded in some, but not for structural purposes. My canopy hinge
is held by five #10s. I allowed about 1/16" all the way around and under and
then wet the pocket out with straight epoxy. Then I packed it full of a
fairly wet flox and set some tiny rivets in the plate to take the shear load
of tightening and loosening the screws. I put some vaseline on the screws
and installed them into the plates before I bedded the plates so the flox
didn't squeeze out into the threds and to leave a pocket for the end of the
screw. Worked great.
I also mounted my alignment pin on the canopy the same way. Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: David W.S. King <KingDWS@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:24 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Bedding Fittings


Just wondering if anyone has tried to embed nutplates.
I was wondering what the maximum amount of fill or flox
you can get away with. I've currently got about a 1/16th
gap between the plywood mount block and the back
keeper plate.

Dave


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




Bedding Fittings

David W.S. King <KingDWS@...>
 

Just wondering if anyone has tried to embed nutplates.
I was wondering what the maximum amount of fill or flox
you can get away with. I've currently got about a 1/16th
gap between the plywood mount block and the back
keeper plate.

Dave


Re: tacho

Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
 

I'm about to to order a new tacho from Spruce..the Westach 3AT3-2 which
is a 3" analogue instrument that reads directly from the mag P lead.
Has anyone used one of these. I borrowed a tiny tach from a mate but I'm
nit too impressed by the way it jumps around somewhat, so thats why I
thought I'd try something else.
Any comments would be appreciated
neil


Re: Fw: Canard/main wing rigging

Robert M. Farnam <bfarnam@...>
 

rayners wrote:

Subject: Canard/main wing rigging

Guys, I thought my request for advice got thru to the Q-list, but my hard drive crashed just after I sent it. As I've had no response, I'm a bit unsure, so I'm trying again.

Does anyone have advice on what the difference in incidence should be on a Q200 with LS1 canard. The last Q-talk said 1.5 to 2.0 degrees or so, but I have heard that some guys fly very happily and maybe more efficiently with 0 to 0.5 degrees. As I am almost at the point of mounting the wings, some good advice would be really welcome.

Chris Rayner



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html
Chris,

Mine is set at zero-zero. That is what the plans call for with the LS
canard. Mine flies just fine with that setting. There was a
recomendation years ago to set the GU canard at 1 or 1.5 degrees up from
the original setting.

Bob
N200QK


Re: Canard/main wing rigging

Dave Richardson <dave@...>
 

Agreed. I have the angles for both the GU and the LS1
in my plans set. I will post those numbers.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <finley@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Canard/main wing rigging


All,

I haven't dug into the archives on this but it seems that zero/zero for
the
LS1 and 1.5/zero for the GU seems to be what the majority of folks are
using. I know there are some variations. 1.5 on the GU is a change from
plans. This is probably a great FAQ item Dave. Might be interesting to
know
how many folks are flying with settings other than these.

Jon Finley
N54JF - Quickie - 1835CC VW
N90MG - Q2 - EA81 Turbo Subaru
Apple Valley, MN


On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:48:33 -0000 "rayners" <rayners@...>
writes:


Subject: Canard/main wing rigging


Guys, I thought my request for advice got thru to the Q-list, but my
hard drive crashed just after I sent it. As I've had no response,
I'm a bit unsure, so I'm trying again.

Does anyone have advice on what the difference in incidence should
be on a Q200 with LS1 canard. The last Q-talk said 1.5 to 2.0
degrees or so, but I have heard that some guys fly very happily and
maybe more efficiently with 0 to 0.5 degrees. As I am almost at the
point of mounting the wings, some good advice would be really
welcome.

Chris Rayner

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



eGroups Sponsor

Choose 3 DVDs for $0.49 each!



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html









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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html



Re: Canard/main wing rigging

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

All,

I haven't dug into the archives on this but it seems that zero/zero for the
LS1 and 1.5/zero for the GU seems to be what the majority of folks are
using. I know there are some variations. 1.5 on the GU is a change from
plans. This is probably a great FAQ item Dave. Might be interesting to know
how many folks are flying with settings other than these.

Jon Finley
N54JF - Quickie - 1835CC VW
N90MG - Q2 - EA81 Turbo Subaru
Apple Valley, MN


On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:48:33 -0000 "rayners" <rayners@...>
writes:


Subject: Canard/main wing rigging


Guys, I thought my request for advice got thru to the Q-list, but my
hard drive crashed just after I sent it. As I've had no response,
I'm a bit unsure, so I'm trying again.

Does anyone have advice on what the difference in incidence should
be on a Q200 with LS1 canard. The last Q-talk said 1.5 to 2.0
degrees or so, but I have heard that some guys fly very happily and
maybe more efficiently with 0 to 0.5 degrees. As I am almost at the
point of mounting the wings, some good advice would be really
welcome.

Chris Rayner

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



eGroups Sponsor

Choose 3 DVDs for $0.49 each!



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Fw: Canard/main wing rigging

kittleson1@...
 

Chris,

Zero and zero.

I'm pretty sure that's what the plans call for. I recall a conversation
that I had with Shehan several years ago when I questioned him about the
"zero" on the canard. He confirmed it.

That's what I have. Seems to work.

A digital level is really cool for this. I wouldn't want to do this
without one.

Al


On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:48:33 -0000 "rayners" <rayners@...>
writes:


Subject: Canard/main wing rigging


Guys, I thought my request for advice got thru to the Q-list, but my
hard drive crashed just after I sent it. As I've had no response,
I'm a bit unsure, so I'm trying again.

Does anyone have advice on what the difference in incidence should
be on a Q200 with LS1 canard. The last Q-talk said 1.5 to 2.0
degrees or so, but I have heard that some guys fly very happily and
maybe more efficiently with 0 to 0.5 degrees. As I am almost at the
point of mounting the wings, some good advice would be really
welcome.

Chris Rayner

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


Re: Fw: Canard/main wing rigging

Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
 

I had to raise the leading of my canard about 1.5 degrees. I did this after my first few flights.

Sam

rayners wrote:

Subject: Canard/main wing rigging

Guys, I thought my request for advice got thru to the Q-list, but my hard drive crashed just after I sent it. As I've had no response, I'm a bit unsure, so I'm trying again.

Does anyone have advice on what the difference in incidence should be on a Q200 with LS1 canard. The last Q-talk said 1.5 to 2.0 degrees or so, but I have heard that some guys fly very happily and maybe more efficiently with 0 to 0.5 degrees. As I am almost at the point of mounting the wings, some good advice would be really welcome.

Chris Rayner



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Re: Prop Calculator

David J. Gall
 

Prop calculator: http://david.gall.com/files/Airplane/prop-099.xls

The "free Microsoft Excel Viewer" link in my last note didn't work. Try clicking the link on my home page if you need the viewer: http://david.gall.com

The prop calculator is based on NACA TN 212 and is true to that document so long as the airplane performance is within the bounds of the document. If your plane's performance goes out-of-bounds, a warning will appear at the bottom of the calculator. Be sure to let your mouse pointer "hover" over the spreadsheet cells that have a little red triangle in their upper-right corner -- there are pop-up notes there. Any feedback will be appreciated. This spreadsheet was used successfully to trim and tweak the Precision Propellers (good prop!) ground adjustable prop seen pulling the airplane ("Darling") on my home page (http://david.gall.com).


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: David J. Gall
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Onan Rpm + Prop


David,

You might have fun with this link: http://david.gall.com/files/Airplane/prop-099.xls

(If you don't have Excel, click here for the free Microsoft Excel Viewer download page.)


David J. Gall


Fw: Canard/main wing rigging

rayners <rayners@...>
 

Subject: Canard/main wing rigging


Guys, I thought my request for advice got thru to the Q-list, but my hard drive crashed just after I sent it. As I've had no response, I'm a bit unsure, so I'm trying again.

Does anyone have advice on what the difference in incidence should be on a Q200 with LS1 canard. The last Q-talk said 1.5 to 2.0 degrees or so, but I have heard that some guys fly very happily and maybe more efficiently with 0 to 0.5 degrees. As I am almost at the point of mounting the wings, some good advice would be really welcome.

Chris Rayner


Q Props , Ooops

David W.S. King <KingDWS@...>
 

I spoke too soon

The url in my last message is just a submittal form not a on-line prop calculator.
( http://hsweb.net/propellers/dataform.htm )

Dave


Q Props

David W.S. King <KingDWS@...>
 

This is off of the VW list. The url is for a java based calculator
that looks rather complete.

Dave

From: "George Majewski" <host@...>
To: <VW@...>
Subject: Re: hand carved prop question
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:07:45 -0500

I think it was on this list that one of the fellows had some sort of prop
program which told how to get the dimensions for the right propeller.
Yep, I have Bates prop software. There is slight problem however. In order to
calculate new prop the DRAG of the airplane is required. If your piet is
already flying then you can run test flight (on a borrowed prop) and from data
recorded at that flight I can calculate drag and match propeller for you. If
you are still building it and your project is "grounded" then you may ask some
volunteers flying piets to run the test for you. I will use average drag value
then and you will get maybe not exact match but close enough. The form to fill
out for that test is at http://hsweb.net/propellers/dataform.htm There is no
help or explanations of any kind yet as I am in process of putting it all
together.
Further - I have another software which uses Bates output and converts it into
G-Code used by CNC machines, so you can skip that "hand carving" part and have
your prop machined with 0.001 tolerance! Heck maybe 0.002 ??

George
host@...
New York


Re: Rotary engine

Michael D. Callahan <micallahan@...>
 

Right now my engine is in pieces on the bench, but I'm hoping to get
satrted on it soon. I plan on making a wood cored composite prop. (I have
some info on it and I can send you the link if you like.)
As for redrive I plan on using Tracy Crook's or a later model Ross,
whichever I can find (the early Ross redrive had no thrust bearings!).
The entire assembly full of water and oil should weigh no more than
50lbs more than an O-200. I am going to locate the Radiator and oil cooler
under the belly to shift the weight for correct C/G.
As for engine speed, don't worry. Tracy runs his RV at around 5000 and
has over 1000 hrs with NO MEASURABLE WEAR! The more you find out about the
Wankel the more you will like it. It can be run up to 8500 without hardened
gears or special apex seals with no problem. Add those parts and it can run
over 14,000.
It doesn't sling rods, break valves, or break pistons. The eccentric
(crank) shaft is about 3" in diameter! Even in GTU auto racing (700+ hp)
they use the stock shaft and it has never failed.
The best thing about it is the cost. I am going to build my own, but I
can buy an all new Aero engine from Dave Atkins for $3500, buy Tracy's
redrive and engine computer for $3200, pick up the last few parts (brand new
alternator, starter, fuel pumps, hoses, radiator, oil cooler etc...) for no
more than $1500 and have an ALL NEW engine system for less than $8000. With
O-200 rebuilds going for $13,000 exchange with no accessories, I just
couldn't see it. Mike C.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Prizevoits <JerryPrize@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Rotary engine


Mike,

How is your engine project going and what type of Prop are you going to
use?
Also are you going to be using a reduction drive?
I like the wankle engine for various reasons but right now I am still
leaning towards and O200. My major concerns are the weight of the
Wankle and the RPM's needed to obtain the needed horsepower for the
aircraft. I do know that the engine can hum away for a very long time at
5000 + rpm.
Thanks

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dwyer [mailto:mdwyer@...]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:12 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Rotary engine

Check out this engine. Wish they made on a little smaller....

http://www.terf.com/engine1.htm


Mike Q-200






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




Re: Prop For Volks Powered Q1

Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

Jeff,

I have an 1835cc VW in my Q1. I am using a 46" diameter ground adjustable
two-blade prop from Precision Props (Vernal, UT) so I can't give you an
exact pitch. I did try a 50x45 once and it was too much. 52" diameter is
about the maximum length for a Q1, if you are careful you will be fine. IMO,
46" pitch sounds like too much. Most Dragonfly's use a 52x42 with an 1835.
The problem with all these numbers is that all prop makers are a bit
different so all 52x42's are not the same (hence the reason that I have a
ground adjustable prop). The only way to arrive at the correct dia. and
pitch for your airplane is start buying and tuning props. I would bet that
something around a 48" to 50" with about 40" of pitch is close to what you
need - but that is only a guess (depends on a lot of variables).

Jon Finley
N54JF - Quickie - 1835CC VW
N90MG - Q2 - EA81 Turbo Subaru
Apple Valley, MN

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Hullin [mailto:jhullin@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 10:01 PM
To: 'Q-LIST@...'
Subject: [Q-LIST] Prop For Volks Powered Q1


Hi,

I am wondering if anyone would be able to advise me of what the best prop
combination may be for a Volkswagen 1600cc powered Q1.

One manufacturer has suggested a 52" diameter prop with a 46" pitch. They
state that a 50 hp. engine turning +&#92;- 3200 rpm at cruise should deliver
140 mph at cruise. I have been advised that this pitch may be too coarse.

I have very limited knowledge in this area and any advice would be
appreciated.

Jeff Hullin
Q1 Volks 1600
C-GUAM



eGroups Sponsor

Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Re: Rotary engine

mbrowner1@...
 

Hi Jerry,

I've got one engine apart. Two to go. Haven't been to the hanger in over a
month. I'm bummed, but life has a way of getting in the way sometimes. No
redrive for me.

Mike


Re: Power Reduction Behavior

Larry Koutz <koutzl@...>
 

Neil
That's what I did (two pushrods), or what came with my kit. The lengthening
and shortening of one push pull rod like a turnbuckle is not too hard to
engineer as I have seen several of them on Q's.
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
To: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Power Reduction Behavior


. I have been thinking about modifying
the elevator bell crank arrangment so the stick has two pushrods, and
the universal is removed. If I did this, I'd be able to adjust each
elevator individually to take up any roll. Might give it more thought.

neil


Larry Koutz wrote:

Neil
Sorry for the delay in answering but this is rather long!

The implications of your questions are impossible to answer. How can I

transfer to you what happened to me on my first flight. I was just
reacting
to movement of the plane trying to maintain the attitude I wanted. I
used
ALL the control input I had at times just for straight and level. I
did what
I had to and I can't even remember how much each control surface moved
or
where the stick was positioned. I have had 3 first flights like this
where
major things didn't go smoothly!!!

So I will tell you what I know from my experience with Q type planes,
I have
flown several.
1. No matter how straight the wings look- it is probably off somewhere
and
unless you have the ability to add up all errors in airfoil shape,
angles of
incidence, twist, etc.. you don't know exactly what will happen!So ya
gotta
test fly.

2. Make sure the plane handles OK on the ground. I flew around for
years
with a plane that had lousy ground handling (would oversteer and
ground loop
at 10 mph if I wasn't cautious) due to main wheel alignment problems.
I
could barely control the plane on the ground, but I did with a lot of
differential braking, aileron steering and weight on the tail wheel.
And it cost me a broken canard and could have cost more. I was just
lucky.
Now I know better. I did the "GALL ALIGNMENT" recently and ground
handling
went from
a D+ to a solid B (now I don't even think about ground handling). If
you
have a long and wide enough runway you can find out a lot of how a
plane is
going to fly (handle in pitch and roll) at
flying taxi speed and reduced power. Jim Masal wrote about this in
back
issues of Quicktalk. Try to find the article if possible. The main
point was
that the plane might lift off some but it
ain't gonna climb with not enough power. You can check control
response at
just below flying speed to uncover any rolling tendencies and roll
feel. The
same with pitch sensitivity and which flying surface wants to lift off

first. I wouldn't try full back stick (or a lot) to try to lift off
the
canard as when it does lift off (with a major elevator deflection) the
plane
tends to pitch up too high and loose lift. Then you have no elevator
authority left to keep the nose up. Bouncy, bouncy, crash! Lot of
accidents
were cause by full aft stick takeoffs and it almost got me just
recently
when I tried to lift off early and had used a lot of elevator input as
an
experiment. The natural tendency when the nose pitches up and then
starts
to come back down is to pull back on the stick more. That adds a LOT
of drag
and very little lift. I had to relax the back pressure, let the wheels

bounce then try to get a flying attitude. Without the added power of
the
O-200 I probably would have bounced again. Luckily I only got one
bouncy.

3. Ground balance- for lack of a better term. If the tailwheel gets
too
light or leaves the ground you better be going fast enough for your
rudder
to be effective or you're just a passenger. Seriously, I have taxied
a Q-2
plane that I could lift the tail wheel off the ground by moderate
braking
and the brake (only one) master cylinder had about an 18" lever arm so
it
was REAL sensitive to inputs. Weight on the tail wheel is real
important and
it is generally achieved by moving the main wheels forward.

4. Now if you feel comfortable taxiing your plane at all speeds and
you can
control it you are ready for flight. So I can answer your questions.

#1. It rolled a lot, I couldn't trim it out with my differential
elevator adjustment. I had to use two hands I got so tired. The roll
was
worse the faster I went so I went slow. I was up less than 5 minutes.

# 2. I now have differential elevator, with a roll adjustment and
roll
trim on the ailerons. I put in as much differential elevator as I
dared
(about 1/2") to get the roll under control and I have the ailerons
rubber
spring loaded to control the rest. I don't know why I originally
started
with the differential elevator. I suppose since I had engineered in a
roll
trim for the elevators it seemed natural to overcome a rolling
tendency with
the elevators. Since that didn't entirely correct the rolling I
installed an
adjustable rubber spring (bungee cord) from the outer arm of the
aileron
bellcrank (QCSA3) to a take up spool located just under the wing.
Rotate the
spool and the spring is stretched and tries to move the bellcrank.
This
spring tension offsets the aerodynamic load and gives me level flight.
Speed
doesn't seem to effect rolling so there is no trimming needed from low
to
high speed in roll once it is set. It is a real simple aileron roll
control
but it only works for controlling roll in one direction. Fine roll
control
is now done with my elevator control adjustment.

#3. about 1/2" (but your mileage may vary)

Hope this helps.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Jepsen <jepsen@...>
To: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...>
Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Power Reduction Behavior


Larry
This leads me to several questions I have been asking
myself
about my Q2 (unflown). My Q has a slight droop in one wing, and
probably something(s) is crooked somewhere else, so I'm expecting
some
roll, but don't know how much to expect; or whether I'll find it in a
ground hop; whether to try and find it in a small hop, or just go and
do
a circuit !

1. On your test flight, how significant was the roll and how much
aileron was needed to hold her level.
2. Why differential elevator rather than a trim tab on an aileron ?
3. How much differential elevator did you end up with?

Neil

Larry Koutz wrote:

Jon
My Power reduction gives me a right YAW. My left rolling is built
into
the
airframe (not intentional but it is there) If I could
aerodynamically
correct that without the need for differential elevators I might
not
have
the Yaw.
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley <finley@...>
To: Q-List <Q-LIST@...>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:40 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Power Reduction Behavior


Larry,

I told you previously that my Q2 had a strong right roll tendency
on
power
reduction. I spent some time this fall adjusting my rudder
(adjusted
cables
between tailwheel and rudder - I have fixed springs holding the
rudder
pedals) and was able to reduce the strength of this roll
tendency. I

noticed that I was holding a small amount of rudder at cruise
which
prompted
the adjustment. So, my right roll tendency is still there but not
as

dramatic (or strong) as what I initially reported. I should
probably
try
it
again now that the t-tail is gone (doubt it would make any
difference
but
stranger things have happened.).

Jon



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html





eGroups Sponsor
[Click Here!]

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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html





eGroups Sponsor
[Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!]
Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




Re: Onan Rpm + Prop

David J. Gall
 

David,

You might have fun with this link: http://david.gall.com/files/Airplane/prop-099.xls

(If you don't have Excel, click here for the free Microsoft Excel Viewer download page.)


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: David W.S. King
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Onan Rpm + Prop


Hi Terry

>I have flown an Onan Q1 468 hours to date. All the Q1's that I am familiar
>with have prop diameters of 42-44 and pitches of 27-30 of the 3 that I have
>flow with the performance was very similar 3300 -3600 rpm in climb.

This is interesting, the prop looks like its setup for a cruise speed of around
90-95ish mph. It should be making about 60lbs of thrust.

> The
>torque curve for this engine is very flat I can scan the engine charts and
>send them to you if you like. most the Q1's flying are probably flying closer
>to 520 than 480 lb.

If you could do that I'd appreciate it. I'd like to figure out exactly
whats going
on with the engine prop combo.

> if you really want to be amused figure the prop numbers
>for a Q1 that cruises at 133 and tops out at 140 like the QAC advertising.
>Heavy Q on hot day 200+ fpm light load on cool day 400+ fpm.
Now those numbers are out to lunch. You'd have to spin the engine at about 4800
with a stock prop. Maybe they used a touch of nitrous and a jato???

>I sure don't
>understand how you are arriving at your numbers, but I can tell you I have a
>lot of fun with mine. How else can you get from Davenport Iowa to Lakeland
>Florida in a day comfortably and burn less than 20 gallons of gas.
Its a simple calculation based on the horsepower equation. You know the
1hp can lift 33000lbs in one minute. In this case you need to also add in prop
efficiency to get a number for how much power is actually being put in the air.

The .85 is the prop efficiency, shp is actually the amount of power left to
climb with.
Ie It takes so much power to maintain level flight, anything left over can
be used for climb.
You can work backwards as well to figure out the hp that produced the given
climb.
Once you know how much climb power you have to play with you can play around
and change the weight and see how it affects climb. With so little power to
start off
with even one or two hp difference will make a big difference.





*effective climb power


Cheers

Dave




eGroups Sponsor

Choose 3 DVDs for $0.49 each!


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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Prop For Volks Powered Q1

Jeff Hullin <jhullin@...>
 

Hi,

I am wondering if anyone would be able to advise me of what the best prop
combination may be for a Volkswagen 1600cc powered Q1.

One manufacturer has suggested a 52" diameter prop with a 46" pitch. They
state that a 50 hp. engine turning +&#92;- 3200 rpm at cruise should deliver
140 mph at cruise. I have been advised that this pitch may be too coarse.

I have very limited knowledge in this area and any advice would be
appreciated.

Jeff Hullin
Q1 Volks 1600
C-GUAM


Re: Onan Rpm + Prop

welshq1@...
 

Had a chance to fly Quickie N494K a little today.
Here are some more numbers for ya'll to kick around.

This is an Onan powered Q-birddy.
Prop is a Demuth 42-30
Aircraft gross, today w/ all my warm cloths on, around 530#.

Temp 34 DP 20 Wind 210 @ 11
Climb @ 80mph from moment of liftoff.
Rpm 3420. Manifold press. 27.5 in.
Thru first 500' 455'/min
Thru 2500' 392'/min
At 2500' prior to leveling off manifold press. 26.5 in.
Aspd @ cruise alt. 3550rpm 115mph. Manifold press 25 in.

Normal warm wx cruise is 105 mph.

Keith Welsh