On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25 PM, logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]

wrote:

 

Mathew,

I also agree with Paul and Sam. If you feel your plane is to fast on landing or that it will be unreliable flying over populated areas (I fly in SF and LA area) you may want to consider a different horse.

As far as Ryan’s statement about a Q landing like a 152 goes, its obvious he doesn’t fly a Q.

Regarding the BRS system on a Q, go ahead and mount one to your plane (costs more than you paid for the whole plane). Test,test,test, gather as much empirical evidence as possible and then return here and publish the results. We may show some interest then.

I can’t tell you how many times we’ve heard this stuff from people who never end up with a successful Q.

While this site is about Q’s, we set it up in 2000 to promote building and flying, not reinventing the plane. Experimentation is wonderful but not real helpful in getting pilots to finish their projects.

I fly my Q weekly as a commuter and “Baby” rarely lets me down.
Jim Patillo
N46JP

 

Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.

 

Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST]

wrote:

 

Who would engineer this BRS? Jim Handbury died developing the SR22 system if I remember correct. What would you use as a test vehicle to assure you that the whole system works reliably? Just asking? 

Another factor is parachutes do not always work as planned. I experienced a structural flight vehicle failure and subsequent parachute failure. It was not a Q bird but still unexpected double failure.

Regards,

Charlie

On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Paul Fisher rv7a.n18pf@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I agree with Sam.  If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.  

But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!

Paul Fisher

Q-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 years

On Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at.  Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.

Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.

Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773

---

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2

 

 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins

Q-200, 2,000+ hours

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.

How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.

Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773

---

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more

 

 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?

I agree with Sam.  If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.  

But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!

Paul Fisher

Q-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 years

On Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at.  Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.

Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.

Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773

---

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2

 

 

I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone.  Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.

I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.

Sam Hoskins

Q-200, 2,000+ hours

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:19 PM Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.

How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.

Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773

---

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more

 

 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?

 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.

How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.

Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773

---

From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more

 

 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]

wrote:

 

Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.

How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.

Matthew Curcio

419.290.3773

---

From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more

 

 

Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?