Q2 Air foil


eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...>
 

Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.


Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.


eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...>
 

Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.










---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.


Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Eric,

I want to throw in another disclaimer. I have flown in an Q2 with a GU canard. While I have been a passenger in several Q200's, I cannot say I have been PIC in one. My previous comments are based upon what I have heard and read about he two airfoils. I hope some of the other Q-list people with acual experience will respond, perhaps after his weekend.

Again, I have no idea what to offer. I finally found an early price for a Q2 kit. In the October, 1980 newsletter, the special introductory price was $8995 (if you bought all three packages together). That was a conventional gear Q2. There would be some additional costs for the landing gear components of the Tri-Q. I am still looking for LS1 costs.
Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.


Larry Severson
 

Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more
out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know
if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them
an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and
paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and
expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im
kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you
ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow
<<mailto:1flashq%40ameritech.net>1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very
efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination ,
e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift.
Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact.
And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There
are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he
GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage,
and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie
Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem
and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU
canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine
on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to
contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as
efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as
noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut
the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a
single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the
pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat
screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <<mailto:ekelsheimer%40yahoo.com>ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth
rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.



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


Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
 

Larry,

Thanks for the imput regarding the GU airfoil. However, Eric wanted the Q2 in the conventional gear configuration along with 100 hp.

Joseph

larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:
Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more
out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know
if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them
an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and
paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and
expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im
kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you
ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?

Joseph M Snow
<<mailto:1flashq%40ameritech.net>1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,

I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:

The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very
efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination ,
e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift.
Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact.
And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There
are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he
GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage,
and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie
Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem
and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU
canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine
on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to
contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as
efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as
noticable.

Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut
the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a
single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the
pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat
screamer. Just add vortex generators

Joseph

eric kelsheimer <<mailto:ekelsheimer%40yahoo.com>ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth
rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.





---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.



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


Paul Buckley
 

The GU
canard could not support the additional weight of the heaver engine
on he ground without sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
carbon fibre spar to support the weight and not be susceptible to
contamination.
As has been pointed out, the GU canard is well able to support the weight of a heavier engine without sagging, as it is good for 30g.
However, it was the lack of sufficient elevator authority, combined with the heavier engine, with the GU that was the reason for the move to the LS1.
I believe that the contamination problem solved by the LS1 was a bonus.....simply co-incidental.

What is the weight of the 100hp Rev?

Paul Buckley
Cheshire, England.

Tri-Q200
Still building.................................


----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph M Snow
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q2 Air foil


Larry,

Thanks for the imput regarding the GU airfoil. However, Eric wanted the Q2 in the conventional gear configuration along with 100 hp.

Joseph

larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:
Reference to the below:
If the plane is a triQ, the GU canard will support any weight the
engine can lift. The weakness of the GU canard vs the LS1 only has
impact on bounced landings WITH tip gear. On the QAC specs, the GU
canard will withstand 30 Gs at 1000 lbs. The triQ will never face
this kind of stress on the canard with a live pilot even if the plane
were flown at a gross weight of 2000 lbs.

At 05:35 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:

>Hello Joseph, Thanks for the tip, I still havent heard anything more
>out of them about the TriQ over there. She was going to let me know
>if it was GU or LS1 but still nothing and I still havent sent them
>an offer for it but have found one that is complete less engine and
>paint for $5000.00 Which is not bad considering all the work and
>expense that went into it. So I dont know what to offfer them. Im
>kinda resigned to the fact that it's probably a GU though. Did you
>ever come up with what you thought would be a good offer?
>
>Joseph M Snow
><<mailto:1flashq%40ameritech.net>1flashq@...> wrote: Eric,
>
>I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:
>
>The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very
>efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination ,
>e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift.
>Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact.
>And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There
>are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he
>GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage,
>and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie
>Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem
>and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU
>canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine
>on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular,
>carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to
>contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as
>efficient as the GU; it was more
>draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as
>noticable.
>
>Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut
>the canard at BL
>00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a
>single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the
>pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat
>screamer. Just add vortex generators
>
>Joseph
>
>eric kelsheimer <<mailto:ekelsheimer%40yahoo.com>ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
>Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth
>rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply
>
>---------------------------------
>Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
>in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
>Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
>
>
>

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










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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 17/03/2007 12:33


Larry Severson
 


What is the weight of the 100hp Rev?
It is actually 110HP and weighs 204 lbs with built in 20 amp alternator and a second alternator driving dual electronic ignition.


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


Panzera <panzera@...>
 

Joe Horvath of Revmaster will be at our annual fly-in,
http://www.mountainstatesfly-in.com/
speaking on the R-3000 and will have one on display.

Pat

What is the weight of the 100hp Rev?
It is actually 110HP and weighs 204 lbs with built in 20 amp
alternator and a second alternator driving dual electronic ignition.


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


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

QAC newsletters 18 and 19 indicate that QAC didn't want to approve heavier
engines on the GU canard, or raise the gross above 1000 lbs. The LS-1 with
carbon spar allowed a gross of 1100 lbs and QAC indicated "We will possibly
increase the gross weight above 1100 lbs after further testing."

For clarity, the "lack of sufficient elevator authority" occurred with rain
on the GU canard, which is a kind of contamination. The LS-1 maintains
lift with water, bugs, whatever; there is some loss of top speed.

Q-2 performance with the Revmaster was OK if you built the plane very
light; most flying Q-2s are around 200 lbs heavier than the factory
demonstrator. One answer is to keep the GU and go to the Jabiru 3300
engine; weight is about the same as the Revmaster 2100 but bring $$$. I
think that's what Paul Spackman did.

Mike Perry

At 07:06 PM 3/18/2007 +0000, Paul Buckley wrote:

As has been pointed out, the GU canard is well able to support the weight
of a heavier engine without sagging, as it is good for 30g. However, it
was the lack of sufficient elevator authority, combined with the heavier
engine, with the GU that was the reason for the move to the LS1. I
believe that the contamination problem solved by the LS1 was a
bonus.....simply co-incidental.