On Dec 23, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
wrote:

If I don't mis remember, the ads in different magazines out for the very

first

quickie in the -70's, showed the Onan version Quickie with a fairing over

the

tailwheel. It never caught on though, but hey...it's gotta do something.

Wasn't that the actual rudder as opposed to simply being a faring?

Pat

The weight makes you go mental, and the drag is detrimental, as long it is not
dental....then it is just a drag.

Roger



________________________________
From: Phil Lankford <britmcman@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 8:52:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining

 
The penalty of added weight is incremental while the savings of aerodynamics is
exponential.


Phil Lankford

On Dec 23, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> wrote:

If I don't mis remember, the ads in different magazines out for the very first

quickie in the -70's, showed the Onan version Quickie with a fairing over the
tailwheel. It never caught on though, but hey...it's gotta do something.

I think it is a matter of things that adds up.

.....the position lights that is not too aerodynamic, the little antenna, the
little temp probe sticking out, the exhaust pipe that sticks out excessively,
the not so flush tanklid, those unsealed gaps, the naked tailwheel, and so
on,

Each one of them doesn't amount to much, but it's like added on weight on the
aircraft,.... it ads up quick.

Roger

________________________________
From: Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:56:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining


I think the drag of the "aftermarket tail wheel" is less important than
having an airplane you can control on the ground. Also, the tailwheel
hangs in the disturbed air coming off the slip-steam and fuselage, so
perhaps less increase in drag than what showed in this video

However, there could be other solutions. A fairing on the tailwheel? I
remember seeing a D-fly with a fairing on the tailwheel. The owner said
he couldn't tell any difference in climb or cruise, however it was a
very small tailwheel. I don't remember who had that plane.

FWIW -- Mike

On 12/23/2010 1:30 AM, Clive wrote:

Nice one Sam,

That certainly puts drag into perspective.

Looks those aftermarket tails wheels that hang down are a high drag item.

Merry Christmas all.

Clive Gobxoy

._,___

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

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







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

Martin,

If you are interested in a flight proven Corvair conversion and the parts
to make it happen go to William Wynne. His lead time sometimes is very long
but his parts are well engineered and the manufacturing is first class. He
has been flight testing everything he sells and gives free colleges on
building engines, buy his book to start.

_http://flycorvair.com_ (http://flycorvair.com)

I am doing a Dragonfly/Corvair and there are some pictures on the Yahoo
Dragonfly list.

_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dragonflylist/photos/album/1015036301/pic/lis
t_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dragonflylist/photos/album/1015036301/pic/list)

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
One Sky Dog
Ogden, Utah

Rick,

The HD version of the "first posting" was broken (for some reason - that is
something that Vimeo does) but the "standard" version worked (click the "HD"
text and it will say "HD Enabled" or something like that). I re-posted the
exact same video and this time Vimeo seems to have converted it properly.

The direct link to the version with working HD is:
http://www.vimeo.com/18022980

Jon

The penalty of added weight is incremental while the savings of aerodynamics is exponential.

Phil Lankford

I'd like to watch this if I could figure how to get more than four seconds
of video. How'd you do it, Mike, when I click Download to Real Player it is
still only 4 seconds

Rick, Q2 glassing elevator



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Mike Dwyer
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:42 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Video





I used the download feature instead of viewing it online and now it's 4
minutes long. Weird...
Great video!
Merry Christmas
Mike

Mike Dwyer wrote:

Woah Jon, that video is only 4 seconds long!
Mike


Jon Finley wrote:

Hi Robert,

After quite a few attempts, I finally got some footage like you
requested.
With the equipment that I have, the camera is attached to the
vertical fin
and I have to start the recording by actually pushing a button on the
camera. So, once I get to the end of the runway, I get out, push record,
just back in, and take off. The problem I have been fighting is that my
camera stops recording when I hit a sharp bump.

I do not know why exactly but yesterday everything finally worked!

So, take a look at my latest video on Vimeo
(http://www.vimeo.com/17962728).


There is another new video (http://www.vimeo.com/17963777) that was
taken by
a friend when I passed him on the way home from breakfast. Very
short and
the lighting is all wrong but still fun.

Enjoy!

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf

Of rdixon
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Video

Dialed in, sighted in and doin' the two step!
Jon, (or Mike D) I would love to see a "tail cam" from the bottom of
the
ship.

Robert

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

If I don't mis remember, the ads in different magazines out for the very first
quickie in the -70's, showed the Onan version Quickie with a fairing over the
tailwheel. It never caught on though, but hey...it's gotta do something.

I think it is a matter of things that adds up.

.....the position lights that is not too aerodynamic, the little antenna, the
little temp probe sticking out, the exhaust pipe that sticks out excessively,
the not so flush tanklid,  those unsealed gaps,  the naked tailwheel,  and so
on,


Each one of them doesn't amount to much, but it's like added on weight on the
aircraft,.... it ads up quick.

Roger



________________________________
From: Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:56:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining

 
I think the drag of the "aftermarket tail wheel" is less important than
having an airplane you can control on the ground. Also, the tailwheel
hangs in the disturbed air coming off the slip-steam and fuselage, so
perhaps less increase in drag than what showed in this video

However, there could be other solutions. A fairing on the tailwheel? I
remember seeing a D-fly with a fairing on the tailwheel. The owner said
he couldn't tell any difference in climb or cruise, however it was a
very small tailwheel. I don't remember who had that plane.

FWIW -- Mike

On 12/23/2010 1:30 AM, Clive wrote:

Nice one Sam,

That certainly puts drag into perspective.

Looks those aftermarket tails wheels that hang down are a high drag item.

Merry Christmas all.

Clive Gobxoy

._,___

There is a guy in the KR field that have done a lot of research, and build up a
massive site on the subject of Corvair engines.

He's been going through about everything you can't wish for, and finally got it
perfected, and you can read all about it, in detail, with a lot of photos.

There was a development process,  that involved broken cranks,  the fix,  the
solution how to put the additional  bearings in place, and as I understand it,
now he has a lot of hours on it.

You should know that before the application of Corvair engines in the KR
aircrafts, there was no broken crankshafts,  they probably started to break
because of the KR's spirited way of flying, ( too fun to fly, too quick to make
turns).

The Q aircraft would probably benefit from having the same front bearing
modifications as the KR aircrafts if a Corvair engine is choosen.. It seems with
the bearing modification to run great now. The reliability is there now.

The Corvair engine seem to be a completely worked out car/airplane engine
conversion, and following the tech outlined from people that has gone before
you, you will save a lot of tears.

The appeal with the Corvair engine is with the smoothness it runs, it's relative
strong power, and also a very appealing aspect is the cost.

If you build up a Corvair engine for airplane application, the engine and model
numbers that are not too interesting for the Hot Rodders, are in fact the
engines that are desirable for aircraft applications, and therefore you usually
get a core "on the cheapy"....the "lesser models" is for our purposes, the much
better engine models.

There was about 1.7 million Corvair engines produced, and there is still a lot
of them around in garages. Bearings, gaskets etc is car part store items.

The displacement is really decent, and if you choose to make a big bore version,
you will get a whopping 3.1 liter displacement, very close to an O-200, not
fully, but very close.

You will run higher compression, than a Continental or Lyc ( standard issue) and
as it is a 6 banger, you will run more efficient than a 4 cylinder engine.

Weight wise you will be lighter ( quite a bit actually) than an O-200.

The big bore cylinders are remachined VW cylinders, ( not much machining
necessary) so the availability is plenty. There are on the market VW big bore
aluminum cylinders with either Nikasil coating, or steel sleve, so you can bring
down the weight further that way.

The case is aluminum, so you will not have the VW Magnesium case problem where
you have to check for cracks on regular basis.(well......check anyway)

You should be able to read all about it following this link:

www.n56ml.com/corvair/

....it is a very interesting engine indeed. You will not get a full fledged
aircraft engine, and you will get your power on a somewhat elevated RPM compared
with a "real" aircraft engine, but it is probably as close as you can get it.

You can probably go to a junkyard and get a Fuel injection system from a junked
6 cylinder engine on the cheapy, that have about the same displacement.


The intake will still be the problematic top configuration, but the exhaust
stack will be much easier to route than a VW.

There are some very easily done reconfigurations of the intake manifold, in
order to make the engine breath much better, but you need to read, enjoy, dream
and plan, when it comes to all those things.

The power pulses are overlapping in a 6 cylinder engine, so you will get a very
smooth running thing.


Overheating may or may not have happened, but unlike like the similar set up
Jabiru that have some cooling issues, , it has never been an big issue with the
Corvair engine.

The Corvair also have a very long track record of flying, It's been up since the
-60's, ( I think Pietenpol went first) , and today you will get plenty of advice
from the experimental field. You will not start as the lone ranger, instead you
can easily duplicate others results.

The power you can expect from the engine, is depending on displacement, I have
seen figures between 90 HP to 120 HP, however, don't steer yourself blind on any
of those numbers though, they really don't mean much, instead concentrate on
getting a well built and balanced engine that will fit your application.

If you do just that, concentrate on building up a very efficient engine, and get
an efficient 2 or 3 bladed prop ,  you will get all the performance you are
asking for.....and then some.

You might want to get some structural advice if you got the VW version of the
Quickie, because this engine will weightwise fall inbetween a VW and an O-200,
however, the power will ( again depending on how you build it), be closer to,
equal or maybe even better than an O-200. so my advice here is, if you don't
have the Q-200 version, to look closely , and duplicate how the Q-200 is beefed
up.

Good luck

Roger




________________________________
From: Martin <mskiby@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 2:21:02 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Engine Choice

 
OK, I hope I am not jumping too far ahead, but I like to get things worked out
far in advance. I am considering a few alternative engines for the project. One
would be the Jabiru, which I have talked to a few of you about. The other I am
looking at is the Corvair. Anyone have experience with this set up that they
would like to share good or bad? It looks like a nice engine and with the
bearings supports I have seen maybe not too bad for a Q200. Any information
would be great.

Thanks all and have a Merry Christmas!







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

Hello Martin,
 
I hope to fly my Q2xx behind the Corvair, 110 hp, sometime soon (my project has just received its Special Airworthiness Dertificate).  After the 40 hours, I should be able to tell you much more.  Perhaps you would like to look at my web page at www.corvairq.info.  If you have specific questions, you can contact me at 1flashq@...

Joseph Snow
Q2xx, N240JS
Euclid, Ohio

Hey Martin,
In the newsletter that I just sent out Tuesday, there is an article by
Joseph Snow about doing the W&B with a corvair engine on a Q-200. Joseph
will probably be the first to successfully fly a Q-200 behind a corvair
conversion.

I am also going to try that route, but as of yet, it is not proven, and my
project is still under reconstruction.

Not sure if this helps your decision at all.

Dan Yager
QBA Editor
www.quickheads.com

OK, I hope I am not jumping too far ahead, but I like to get things worked out far in advance. I am considering a few alternative engines for the project. One would be the Jabiru, which I have talked to a few of you about. The other I am looking at is the Corvair. Anyone have experience with this set up that they would like to share good or bad? It looks like a nice engine and with the bearings supports I have seen maybe not too bad for a Q200. Any information would be great.

Thanks all and have a Merry Christmas!

I think the drag of the "aftermarket tail wheel" is less important than
having an airplane you can control on the ground. Also, the tailwheel
hangs in the disturbed air coming off the slip-steam and fuselage, so
perhaps less increase in drag than what showed in this video

However, there could be other solutions. A fairing on the tailwheel? I
remember seeing a D-fly with a fairing on the tailwheel. The owner said
he couldn't tell any difference in climb or cruise, however it was a
very small tailwheel. I don't remember who had that plane.

FWIW -- Mike

Hi Clive,

Me and many others have had that "aftermarket" tailwheel installed for a very long time and as far as I know everyone flying it, is happy. I haven't heard one complaint. For me, I'm willing to trade a couple of knots for convienence. "Turns on one main (with dual brakes), unlatching the full swivel allows the plane to be handled much more easily on the ground, also allows for canard incidence adjustment, more beefy and better control down the runway.

The video Sam provided shows "things" laid across the airstream and I can see that drag, but what happens when you turn that rod in line and flow air over it lengthwize? What kind of drag does that create? NOT MUCH. The vertical area of the tailwheel on the other hand does create drag but so does the original tailwheel.

There's no doubt drag is critical but if it's ones goal to have the lightest and cleanest Q in the air, one should start that concept from the first layup, not at the end of the project. Again, given the available engines and HP, I believe this plane hits the wall at around 215-220 MPH no matter what you do. Unlike Klaus' EZE , this airframe is not nearly as clean. If Sam or anyone else for that matter ever goes faster than that, I'm all ears.

Merry Christmas

Jim Patillo - Going out for another flight over Yosemite this AM. Its beautiful up there. We're really fortunate out here with all the great flying days.

________________________________
From: "Q1terryMDT@..." <Q1terryMDT@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 4:47:02 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Q Guy


Dennis Clark, if you are on the list please contact me, or anyone that can
put me in touch with him.

Thanks

Terry Crouch
Quickie N14TC

Nice one Sam,

That certainly puts drag into perspective.

Looks those aftermarket tails wheels that hang down are a high drag item.

Merry Christmas all.

Clive Gobxoy

Hey All,
I just got an e-mail from another team entering a Quickie in the Jul 2011 CAFE Green Flight Challenge. It would be cool if this team and Gene Sheehan's team placed first and second! (I won't say which team I would prefer won!) :-)

Anyway, the team's pilot is seeking advice and maybe a few Q2 flights before the event in July. Experienced Q flyers, please contact him directly if you can oblige.

I'll add his full e-mail below so you have his contact info and other stats.

Thanks All,
Dan Yager
QBA Editor
www.quickheads.com

_____________________________________

Hi Dan,
I'm Kip Dixon. I have a bit of an unusual request. I live in Hartford, CT and I am working on a thesis project to earn my Master's Degree in Engineering.

For my thesis I have joined a team that plans to enter an aircraft in the Green Flight Challenge sponsored by the CAFE Foundation in Jul 2011. We are working on an experimental approach to fly this airplane with little to no traditional gas. For the airframe, we have a Rutan Quickie.

Before moving to CT I was a pilot for about 10 years in the USAF, so I am also going to be the pilot for this endeavor and I have never flown a Quickie before. I was hoping you could help me with a list of folks in and around CT who have flying Quickie 2s so I could get some flight instruction.

You can e-mail me at dixonk1974(at)yahoo(dot)com Thanks in advance for your help.

Kip Dixon

Dan:
Check your E-mail.
======
Leon

Hey All,
Does anyone have the plans addendum for the fuselage cut on the Q1. I got an e-mail asking about them. If someone has a copy I'll add them to the QBA website. Please let me know.

Thanks,
Dan Yager
QBA Editor
www.quickheads.com

Hey All,
I just sent Q-talk Issue 144 to all current paid QBA Members! (Consider it an early Christmas Present!) What that means is that I made it through my first year as Editor! WOW! That went REALLY fast!

I have lots of great ideas for the New Year, but for now I just wanted to take a minute to thank you all for the support you've shown me throughout 2010! I really couldn't have done it without you guys, and this issue of Q-talk is proof!

There are great articles in there about how to blow a new canopy for the Q2, how to do a W&B on a Q-200 with a 2700cc corvair engine, and how to change the alternator on your O-200! Awesome stuff!

If there was some sort of e-mail SNAFU and it didn't end up in your inbox, you can check it out in the Q-talk Archive here:

http://www.quickheads.com/q-talk-144-novdec-2010-index.html

If you didn't get it because you're still not a member - Shame on you! Go join right now!

http://www.quickheads.com/join-QBA.html

LOL! Although I'm probably not the first to say this to you - Have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy "Q" Year! (roll eyes)

Stay safe, and keep those articles coming!

Cheers,
Dan Yager
QBA Editor
www.quickheads.com

Neato......


On Dec 21, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Sam Hoskins wrote:

This came across on the Sport Air Racing League e-mail list.

Well I knew a round rod had more drag than a streamlined shape but I didn't
know how much. The final example is the most telling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftq8jTQ8ANE

Maybe that pitot tube is worth looking at or even the tailwheel spring?
Also remember that these drag issues apply on the inside of the cowling, as
well as the outside.

Merry Christmas

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

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