Looks like 24LM sold. The post on Barnstormers is gone.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "instructor_bill"
<instructor_bill@...> wrote:

1. I understand that the GU canard works, it's just that rain/bug
tuck that I don't like.

2. I understand that the afterthought/fix was the vortex generators-

-

but many have considered the real fix to be not installing the GU
canard in favor of the LS1 canard or Removing the GU and replacing

it

FASTER OR NOT, no pitch down. Besides, I wanted a flying airplane
and didn't want to go replacing a canard if I didn't break it.

3. EMB-135BJ Great airplane

4. Sorry, I think that wing warping is for chutes and other than

that

it's quite antiquated

5. I'm okay with building a piece or part here and there, I can
wrench with the best of them and I understand the nature of-- buy

it

and fix what you don't like... so do I buy a q1 and turn it into a
q200. Wouldn't it be more practical to buy the Q that I want?

6 The test pilot line-- I know the first 40 hours blah blah blah.
I'd prefer to have some of the bugs worked out. Is that so wrong?

I appreciate your willingness to help me find my way, but I've

found

my way long ago. The buying power doesn't lie with the

certificated

airplane. New or used they'll always cost more. Why not get
something I can buy outright?

Originally, I wanted to build an RV8 but that was because I wanted

to

fly a relatively fast, efficient, and capable airplane (aerobatics
was not my aim.) I'm looking now for a Q now because I wanted a
flying airplane with some fuel efficiency.

My eyes are wide open and I am getting myself an education first.

Thanks!

--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@ wrote:

Instructor Bill,

Para #1 The GU canard airfoil is safe and efficient but like all

airfoils is

not perfect. It is a laminar flow airfoil that loses some of its

laminar area

when crap on the surface makes the boundary layer turbulent. The

fix is

known and effective "VG's" work on a lot of airplanes including

Q's, Dragonflies,

Boeing 737's B-52's and many other certified planes to shape

airflow. On the

GU canard any material in triangular form 1.25 inches long and

about .375

high will do. Instal set at +/-15 degrees to the airstream in

pairs about 1"

apart at the pointy end of the triangle spaced about 2" apart at

the 50% chord

line. This fixes the contamination issue and does not cause a

drag

penalty.

They are ugly and get in the way of cleaning and polishing but do

not degrade

performance. GU's are faster and more fuel efficient than LS1's

in

my

opinion from the L/D curves I think I read somewhere but I can't

think of any hard

data at the moment.

Para #2 You do not say what you fly just that it is wonderful?

Wing

warping

is the best we just are not capable of the technologically

advanced

sophisticated systems required to do it efficiently. Wing warping

is still being used

today, and being sought after for high-tech platforms. I

personally

have

flown over 500 hours on un-powered aerial vehicles that use wing

warping for roll

control with distance flights up to 120 miles and altitudes up

to

17,999 ft

MSL. Recent years I have been flying a Dragonfly with a GU

canard

and the

plane only has 850 hours on it and I put on 550 of them flying

trips up to 1115

miles in a day.

Para #3,4,5 Every plane is different and each has good and bad

points when

you buy into someone else's home-built you have to either accept

the bad points

or fix them! You are now the mechanic in charge for the airframe

and the

engine these planes are not buy and fly airplanes. You have to

continually

check them and fix little things just like on certified planes.

The problem is

that you can't buy all the parts to fix them with you have to

make

a lot of

them from scratch. If you are considering buying a composite

airplane you

should be educated on composite structures and inspection

methods.

You will learn

composite manufacturing techniques because no one else will fix

your

airplane. If you are worried about the engine do testing or tear

ir

down and put a

new bearing set in it and a valve job on the heads. VW's only

last

on the

average about 500 hours as best as I can guess and you are

adjusting every 25

hours and changing oil too.

Para#5 You are the test pilot! If not the initial test pilot, the

endurance

test pilot. As a pilot you are required to determine

airworthiness.

As an

owner doing maintenance you sign the log and return to service

with a log entry

and a test flight. Every flight is a new opportunity to find a

flaw and deal

with it. Maybe your looking for a certified airplane?

This was meant as a helpful reality check owing and operating

someone else's

home-built can be a lot of work and rework and testing. Go in

eyes

wide open.

Regards and happy airtime.

One Sky Dog



In a message dated 1/1/2009 6:16:39 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
instructor_bill@ writes:

If the GU canard was really "unsafe" wouldn't the FAA issue an
airworthiness directive to correct rain and bug contamination of

the

airfoil?

I fly a very technologically advanced airplane... one that

doesn't

need all of that sophistication, but it's nice-- really nice.

Even

though I know the Wright brothers were able to break the surly

bonds

using wing warping, but it simply worked-- it wasn't great (just

the

best at the time)

That said. I'm probably going to hold out for an airplane that

was

built with the major fixes taken care of.

The six-pack would be nice, but not having an LS1 canard could

be

the

real deal breaker for me on 24LM. Additionally, not having the
original logs or plans and having not flown for such a long time

is

not confidence inspiring. The account that the engine had been
started with regularity is nice-- but it can't be proven without

some

real detective work-- occasional fuel receipts and the like.

It's

possible (yet highly unlikely) these documents are available
somewhere.

I've got plenty of experience but I'm no test pilot. I've not

been

to see the airplane and if I did, I might love it and love to

own

it

but would probably regret the purchase because it really isn't

the

airplane I want. I'd prefer to fly half-way 'cross the States to

go

see and fly an airplane for sale WITH THE OWNER or at least talk

with

somebody who has flown it and can relate fight quality to me.

Here's the info that Charles gave me. I wish you the best

Charles

but maybe this isn't the plane for me.


**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is

making

headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


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

1. I understand that the GU canard works, it's just that rain/bug
tuck that I don't like.

2. I understand that the afterthought/fix was the vortex generators--
but many have considered the real fix to be not installing the GU
canard in favor of the LS1 canard or Removing the GU and replacing it
FASTER OR NOT, no pitch down. Besides, I wanted a flying airplane
and didn't want to go replacing a canard if I didn't break it.

3. EMB-135BJ Great airplane

4. Sorry, I think that wing warping is for chutes and other than that
it's quite antiquated

5. I'm okay with building a piece or part here and there, I can
wrench with the best of them and I understand the nature of-- buy it
and fix what you don't like... so do I buy a q1 and turn it into a
q200. Wouldn't it be more practical to buy the Q that I want?

6 The test pilot line-- I know the first 40 hours blah blah blah.
I'd prefer to have some of the bugs worked out. Is that so wrong?

I appreciate your willingness to help me find my way, but I've found
my way long ago. The buying power doesn't lie with the certificated
airplane. New or used they'll always cost more. Why not get
something I can buy outright?

Originally, I wanted to build an RV8 but that was because I wanted to
fly a relatively fast, efficient, and capable airplane (aerobatics
was not my aim.) I'm looking now for a Q now because I wanted a
flying airplane with some fuel efficiency.

My eyes are wide open and I am getting myself an education first.

Thanks!

--- In Q-LIST@..., oneskydog@... wrote:

Instructor Bill,

Para #1 The GU canard airfoil is safe and efficient but like all

airfoils is

not perfect. It is a laminar flow airfoil that loses some of its

laminar area

when crap on the surface makes the boundary layer turbulent. The

fix is

known and effective "VG's" work on a lot of airplanes including

Q's, Dragonflies,

Boeing 737's B-52's and many other certified planes to shape

airflow. On the

GU canard any material in triangular form 1.25 inches long and

about .375

high will do. Instal set at +/-15 degrees to the airstream in

pairs about 1"

apart at the pointy end of the triangle spaced about 2" apart at

the 50% chord

line. This fixes the contamination issue and does not cause a drag

penalty.

They are ugly and get in the way of cleaning and polishing but do

not degrade

performance. GU's are faster and more fuel efficient than LS1's in

my

opinion from the L/D curves I think I read somewhere but I can't

think of any hard

data at the moment.

Para #2 You do not say what you fly just that it is wonderful? Wing

warping

is the best we just are not capable of the technologically

advanced

sophisticated systems required to do it efficiently. Wing warping

is still being used

today, and being sought after for high-tech platforms. I personally

have

flown over 500 hours on un-powered aerial vehicles that use wing

warping for roll

control with distance flights up to 120 miles and altitudes up to

17,999 ft

MSL. Recent years I have been flying a Dragonfly with a GU canard

and the

plane only has 850 hours on it and I put on 550 of them flying

trips up to 1115

miles in a day.

Para #3,4,5 Every plane is different and each has good and bad

points when

you buy into someone else's home-built you have to either accept

the bad points

or fix them! You are now the mechanic in charge for the airframe

and the

engine these planes are not buy and fly airplanes. You have to

continually

check them and fix little things just like on certified planes.

The problem is

that you can't buy all the parts to fix them with you have to make

a lot of

them from scratch. If you are considering buying a composite

airplane you

should be educated on composite structures and inspection methods.

You will learn

composite manufacturing techniques because no one else will fix

your

airplane. If you are worried about the engine do testing or tear ir

down and put a

new bearing set in it and a valve job on the heads. VW's only last

on the

average about 500 hours as best as I can guess and you are

adjusting every 25

hours and changing oil too.

Para#5 You are the test pilot! If not the initial test pilot, the

endurance

test pilot. As a pilot you are required to determine airworthiness.

As an

owner doing maintenance you sign the log and return to service

with a log entry

and a test flight. Every flight is a new opportunity to find a

flaw and deal

with it. Maybe your looking for a certified airplane?

This was meant as a helpful reality check owing and operating

someone else's

home-built can be a lot of work and rework and testing. Go in eyes

wide open.

Regards and happy airtime.

One Sky Dog



In a message dated 1/1/2009 6:16:39 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
instructor_bill@... writes:

If the GU canard was really "unsafe" wouldn't the FAA issue an
airworthiness directive to correct rain and bug contamination of

the

airfoil?

I fly a very technologically advanced airplane... one that doesn't
need all of that sophistication, but it's nice-- really nice. Even
though I know the Wright brothers were able to break the surly

bonds

using wing warping, but it simply worked-- it wasn't great (just

the

best at the time)

That said. I'm probably going to hold out for an airplane that was
built with the major fixes taken care of.

The six-pack would be nice, but not having an LS1 canard could be

the

real deal breaker for me on 24LM. Additionally, not having the
original logs or plans and having not flown for such a long time

is

not confidence inspiring. The account that the engine had been
started with regularity is nice-- but it can't be proven without

some

real detective work-- occasional fuel receipts and the like. It's
possible (yet highly unlikely) these documents are available
somewhere.

I've got plenty of experience but I'm no test pilot. I've not been
to see the airplane and if I did, I might love it and love to own

it

but would probably regret the purchase because it really isn't the
airplane I want. I'd prefer to fly half-way 'cross the States to

go

see and fly an airplane for sale WITH THE OWNER or at least talk

with

somebody who has flown it and can relate fight quality to me.

Here's the info that Charles gave me. I wish you the best Charles
but maybe this isn't the plane for me.


**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is

making

headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


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

instructor_bill wrote:

If the GU canard was really "unsafe" wouldn't the FAA issue an airworthiness directive to correct rain and bug contamination of the airfoil?

The FAA doesn't bother much with Experimentals. I don't recall an AD against any experimental airplane and there are none that I am aware of against any Q version.

Happy New Year!

Mike Q200 N3QP

Instructor Bill,

Para #1 The GU canard airfoil is safe and efficient but like all airfoils is
not perfect. It is a laminar flow airfoil that loses some of its laminar area
when crap on the surface makes the boundary layer turbulent. The fix is
known and effective "VG's" work on a lot of airplanes including Q's, Dragonflies,
Boeing 737's B-52's and many other certified planes to shape airflow. On the
GU canard any material in triangular form 1.25 inches long and about .375
high will do. Instal set at +/-15 degrees to the airstream in pairs about 1"
apart at the pointy end of the triangle spaced about 2" apart at the 50% chord
line. This fixes the contamination issue and does not cause a drag penalty.
They are ugly and get in the way of cleaning and polishing but do not degrade
performance. GU's are faster and more fuel efficient than LS1's in my
opinion from the L/D curves I think I read somewhere but I can't think of any hard
data at the moment.

Para #2 You do not say what you fly just that it is wonderful? Wing warping
is the best we just are not capable of the technologically advanced
sophisticated systems required to do it efficiently. Wing warping is still being used
today, and being sought after for high-tech platforms. I personally have
flown over 500 hours on un-powered aerial vehicles that use wing warping for roll
control with distance flights up to 120 miles and altitudes up to 17,999 ft
MSL. Recent years I have been flying a Dragonfly with a GU canard and the
plane only has 850 hours on it and I put on 550 of them flying trips up to 1115
miles in a day.

Para #3,4,5 Every plane is different and each has good and bad points when
you buy into someone else's home-built you have to either accept the bad points
or fix them! You are now the mechanic in charge for the airframe and the
engine these planes are not buy and fly airplanes. You have to continually
check them and fix little things just like on certified planes. The problem is
that you can't buy all the parts to fix them with you have to make a lot of
them from scratch. If you are considering buying a composite airplane you
should be educated on composite structures and inspection methods. You will learn
composite manufacturing techniques because no one else will fix your
airplane. If you are worried about the engine do testing or tear ir down and put a
new bearing set in it and a valve job on the heads. VW's only last on the
average about 500 hours as best as I can guess and you are adjusting every 25
hours and changing oil too.

Para#5 You are the test pilot! If not the initial test pilot, the endurance
test pilot. As a pilot you are required to determine airworthiness. As an
owner doing maintenance you sign the log and return to service with a log entry
and a test flight. Every flight is a new opportunity to find a flaw and deal
with it. Maybe your looking for a certified airplane?

This was meant as a helpful reality check owing and operating someone else's
home-built can be a lot of work and rework and testing. Go in eyes wide open.

Regards and happy airtime.

One Sky Dog

If the GU canard was really "unsafe" wouldn't the FAA issue an
airworthiness directive to correct rain and bug contamination of the
airfoil?

I fly a very technologically advanced airplane... one that doesn't
need all of that sophistication, but it's nice-- really nice. Even
though I know the Wright brothers were able to break the surly bonds
using wing warping, but it simply worked-- it wasn't great (just the
best at the time)

That said. I'm probably going to hold out for an airplane that was
built with the major fixes taken care of.

The six-pack would be nice, but not having an LS1 canard could be the
real deal breaker for me on 24LM. Additionally, not having the
original logs or plans and having not flown for such a long time is
not confidence inspiring. The account that the engine had been
started with regularity is nice-- but it can't be proven without some
real detective work-- occasional fuel receipts and the like. It's
possible (yet highly unlikely) these documents are available
somewhere.

I've got plenty of experience but I'm no test pilot. I've not been
to see the airplane and if I did, I might love it and love to own it
but would probably regret the purchase because it really isn't the
airplane I want. I'd prefer to fly half-way 'cross the States to go
see and fly an airplane for sale WITH THE OWNER or at least talk with
somebody who has flown it and can relate fight quality to me.

Here's the info that Charles gave me. I wish you the best Charles
but maybe this isn't the plane for me.

Bill: Thanks for the call this evening. Here are the notes I've sent
to other interested parties. Feel free to call or email with further
questions. Charles Coleman _____________________________________ I am
not the builder, rather the third owner.Airworthiness Cert. July
1990.No spec sheet, but will be happy to answer any specific
questions onequipment.The revmaster 2100D is normally aspirated and
has high altitude heads, ratedat about 69HPThe prop is not constant
speed, but is in-flight adjustable.Empty weight 612, max gross 1000,
total fuel 23 gallons (15 main 8 header).Not a lot of room behind the
seats but you can get a sleeping bag and asmall tent behind the
pilot. I believe that baggage is limited to 40lbs.Mode C transponder
(has not been certified in the past 24 months but has hada quick
bench check and was told that it is within tolerance).Older Navcom
radio, works fine.Day and night VFR only, no gyro instruments.Has
position lights, cockpit lights, wingtip strobes and landing light.
I am 5' 7" with an inseam of 29". I have adequate head room for my
torsosize (about 1" clearance with the canopy when closed) but the
rudder pedalsare a few inches too far for my leg length. Ican
accommodate this by rotating my feet forward but it would be
morecomfortable for someone with an inseam of 31 or longer. I do not
have theoriginal plans but do have quite a few of the Quickie
Builders Associationnewsletters which Mr. Moss subscribed to. I have
some extra brake parts,the vacuum pump (which I removed as there were
no vacuum instruments), theoriginal tailwheel, and other
miscellaneous items which I'll give to the newowner. No damage
history that I know of. Lee Moss finished the plane in the late80's
and flew it for about 75 hours until he lost his medical after
beingdiagnosed with Alzheimer's around 1991 or 92. From that time
until 2006 hekept it in his hangar at Apple Valley. He or his hangar
partner would startthe engine every month or so, and did some
modifications from time to time.In 2006 Mr. Moss' Alzheimer's
condition was so advanced that he could nolonger visit the hangar so
his family sold the plane to Dustin Shawver ofPhoenix Arizona. The
original logs were not found at that time as Mr. Mosshad thrown away
many documents (his wife indicated to me that he had eventhrown away
one large check). Dustin and Mr. Moss' hangar partner estimatedthe
total time on the plane as approximately 75 hours at that time,
Dustinestablished new log books for the airframe and engine, did the
annualcondition inspection work with an A&P over a period of months,
and sold theplane to me approximately 18 months ago. Dustin did not
fly the planeduring his brief ownership. After retiring from my
airline job, I intendedto use the plane to commute from my summer
home in Washington to Van Nuys,where we spend the winters, but
shortly after purchasing it I had anabnormal EKG on my medical exam,
and have not been able to get my medicalback. So I have not flown the
airplane and probably will not be able to infuture. I did the annual
condition inspection work along with an A&P lastSpring and had the
inspection in April 2008. (I did a complete replacementof the brake
hardware, flushed and replaced the brake fluid, pulled theengine to
inspect the mags and to replace the starter motor, replaced astrobe
light, replaced the original tailwheel with the suggested retrofit
(more appropriate geometry and softer rubber), replaced the contacts
for theelectric IVO prop. I contacted the Revmaster group at their
Hesperia officeto get a summary of any work Mr. Moss may have had
done there.....theyindicated that the only thing he had done was the
installation of highaltitude heads, increasing HP from 64 to about
69. I've also visited theIVO prop office in Los Angeles to get a
history of the propeller. Theyindicated that it was purchased new by
Mr. Moss and installed in the early90's. The transponder has not had
a formal 24 month check. I did take it to ashop to have a fuse
replaced and the tech quickly checked frequencyresponses. He said
that the responses were within tolerance but could betweaked a bit.
So it is a late 1980s airplane which has been maintained in
airworthycondition, always hangared, with only 85 hours total time,
but has not beenflown since the early 90s. I've put about 10 hours on
the Q2 doing taxitests, and have accidentally become airborne during
high speed taxi testson 26L at Chino.....flew the length of the
runway in ground effect with nosurprises.Mr. Moss installed a larger
than normal header tank of 8 gallons.This in addition to the main
tank gives a capacity of about 23 gallons(other Q2s which I've seen
have capacities ranging from 15 gallons to 20gallons). The normal Q2
performance is about 3gph at 150 mph so this planeshould have a range
of over 1000 miles plus reserves. Top speed for most Q2sis around
170mph I am free most of the time to show the plane. It is at the
Chino Airport inCalifornia. ONT is the closest commercial
airport .....about 7 miles away.________________________________ Just
fixed the 12V accessory outlet recently......it was a
groundingproblem. Everything works now.
--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

No intructor_bill you ain't the "fella". This "fella" is from
Sacramento and his name is Nic.

Being new to Quickies, your concerns are legitimate. Jon is correct
in that the plane will fly and land with a GU canard (VG's),
Revemaster, single brake, T-tail, ect. However all you have to do

is

read the NTSB reports and you will quickly understand why starting
off with a more refined aircraft might be perfered for a newbe.

Maybe

I can state it another way, would you rather snow ski on old 1980's
technology or the new ones on the market today. They both work but
the new ones can make bad look real good!

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this senerio play out.

The

end results are almost always a broken prop, (props) broken
tailspring, broken tail, broken canard, totaled airplane.

Ultimately,

you are the authority on your decisions.

BTW Jon, Enzos are good.

Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "instructor_bill"
<instructor_bill@> wrote:

Hey there Jim...

Not totally sure if I'm the "fella" you're talking about having
contacted you.

I'm still thinking about it. With the GU canard and single

circuit

Hydro brake-- I'm still quite on the fence. I'm hoping to make

it

out to see you, Bob, and the others out in LVK soon.

As it stands right now, I'm just learning all I can about the

Quickie.

The Q200, and Suby-Q are most interesting to me so far.

I still have your email somewhere, but may just be giving you a

call

before I plan to visit one weekend coming up.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@> wrote:

Quickie Group,

Anybody know anything about N24LM home based in Chino? Who

built

it?

Charles Coleman appears to be the current owner? Your detective

work is

greatly appreciated.

I've been contacted by a fella who is interested.

Thanks
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

No intructor_bill you ain't the "fella". This "fella" is from
Sacramento and his name is Nic.

Being new to Quickies, your concerns are legitimate. Jon is correct
in that the plane will fly and land with a GU canard (VG's),
Revemaster, single brake, T-tail, ect. However all you have to do is
read the NTSB reports and you will quickly understand why starting
off with a more refined aircraft might be perfered for a newbe. Maybe
I can state it another way, would you rather snow ski on old 1980's
technology or the new ones on the market today. They both work but
the new ones can make bad look real good!

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this senerio play out. The
end results are almost always a broken prop, (props) broken
tailspring, broken tail, broken canard, totaled airplane. Ultimately,
you are the authority on your decisions.

BTW Jon, Enzos are good.

Jim Patillo



--- In Q-LIST@..., "instructor_bill"
<instructor_bill@...> wrote:

Hey there Jim...

Not totally sure if I'm the "fella" you're talking about having
contacted you.

I'm still thinking about it. With the GU canard and single circuit
Hydro brake-- I'm still quite on the fence. I'm hoping to make it
out to see you, Bob, and the others out in LVK soon.

As it stands right now, I'm just learning all I can about the

Quickie.

The Q200, and Suby-Q are most interesting to me so far.

I still have your email somewhere, but may just be giving you a

call

before I plan to visit one weekend coming up.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@> wrote:

Quickie Group,

Anybody know anything about N24LM home based in Chino? Who built

it?

Charles Coleman appears to be the current owner? Your detective

work is

greatly appreciated.

I've been contacted by a fella who is interested.

Thanks
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

Hi instructor_bill,

It sounds as though you may have been hooked by the scare mongers. I know, I
know - you guys can slap me around at the next fly-in! ;-)

A PROPERLY setup GU canard with single master cylinder brakes is a perfectly
good airplane. However; I am NOT a Revmaster fan. That's what I fly (not
the Revmaster) several times a week from (and back onto) a 37' wide runway
and I don't have any problems (and I'm not related to the Yeager's). My
plane is also NOT one of the "slow landing" Q's - I have to be over the
numbers at 90mph. See the following link for a video of said activities (the
9th one down titled " Takeoff And Landing From End of Runway - 10/24/2007"
http://www.finleyweb.net/JonsStuff/Videos/tabid/186/Default.aspx

A GOOD wheel alignment and brakes that do not bind are mandatory. The only
real downside of the GU is having to have the VG's installed. Some mention
the weight carrying difference. I guess my only suggestion is (while at LVK)
to ask Alan Thayer how he felt my plane flew at Beatrice this past summer as
we were "fully loaded+" - also ask him how the ground roll felt.

Is there something better? Yes, I do believe the Jim-Bob Six Pack is
"better" than the above. I'd like to have toe brakes, the swiveling
tailwheel, an LSI (mostly for a "clean" look - no VG's), a Ferrari Enzo, a
summer home in Tahiti, and a Piaggio Avanti. However; I have what I have, I
enjoy it, and feel that it is safe (hence no motivation to change it).

Jon

Hey there Jim...

Not totally sure if I'm the "fella" you're talking about having
contacted you.

I'm still thinking about it. With the GU canard and single circuit
Hydro brake-- I'm still quite on the fence. I'm hoping to make it
out to see you, Bob, and the others out in LVK soon.

As it stands right now, I'm just learning all I can about the Quickie.

The Q200, and Suby-Q are most interesting to me so far.

I still have your email somewhere, but may just be giving you a call
before I plan to visit one weekend coming up.

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

Quickie Group,

Anybody know anything about N24LM home based in Chino? Who built

it?

Charles Coleman appears to be the current owner? Your detective

work is

greatly appreciated.

I've been contacted by a fella who is interested.

Thanks
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

Thanks,

Jim

--- In Q-LIST@..., larry severson <larry2@...> wrote:

Anybody know anything about N24LM home based in Chino? Who built

it?

Charles Coleman appears to be the current owner? Your detective

work is

greatly appreciated.

It is in my hanger. Charles Colemann IS the owner. He lost his

medical.

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

Anybody know anything about N24LM home based in Chino? Who built it?
Charles Coleman appears to be the current owner? Your detective work is
greatly appreciated.

It is in my hanger. Charles Colemann IS the owner. He lost his medical.


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

Quickie Group,

Anybody know anything about N24LM home based in Chino? Who built it?
Charles Coleman appears to be the current owner? Your detective work is
greatly appreciated.

I've been contacted by a fella who is interested.

Thanks
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200