Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year


One Sky Dog
 

Clive,

Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/
Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I think
the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180 indicated
in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp. Low drag
and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning plane. Just my
$.02 and opinion not backed by facts.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson, Dragonfly builder
Ogden, Utah


In a message dated 1/1/2011 4:38:50 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
gobxoy@... writes:


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.


Clive Clapham
 

Hi Jim
Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)
Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.
It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as possible.
Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal prefrence.
The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground angle.
When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.
I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.
Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop arc hurts them alot.
If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's critical how about horse power?
Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get there.
Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.
BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775 lbs empty?
Happy new year
Clive ... Gobxoy


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


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.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> 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

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

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up -- if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry






Jim Patillo
 

Happy New Year Clive,

I'm not confusing anything aero or othewize, please reread my email. As soon as anyone demonstrates they can consistantly cruise their Q at 200 MPH + I'll be all over it. BTW, the JimBob Six Pack has proven itself over and over for many years now. At this stage, people either get it or they don't. So you can dangle what ever you want from the back and its OK.

You are correct, my plane weighs 775 lbs. If you ever saw it up close and personal you would understand why. I built it with the intention of having a fast, clean looking show plane and that's what I got. I wanted a production looking airplane, not one that looked like it was hatched in a back yard. In retrospect, I would have done it the same way.

Best regards and now.............. go FLY!

Jim Patillo
N46JP
Q200

P.S.Flew to Truckee, CA (Reno)in the Sierras yesterday. Lots of snow in them thar hills.

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

Hi Jim
Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)
Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.
It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as possible.
Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal prefrence.
The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground angle.
When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.
I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.
Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop arc hurts them alot.
If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's critical how about horse power?
Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get there.
Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.
BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775 lbs empty?
Happy new year
Clive ... Gobxoy


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


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.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> 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

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

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up -- if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry






Jim Patillo
 

Charlie, you are right. They do become lawn darts when pointed straight down. The max speed my airframe has ever seen is around 240 mph during testing.

Are you running your new engine yet?
JP

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

Clive,

Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/
Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I think
the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180 indicated
in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp. Low drag
and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning plane. Just my
$.02 and opinion not backed by facts.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson, Dragonfly builder
Ogden, Utah


In a message dated 1/1/2011 4:38:50 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
gobxoy@... writes:


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.



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


One Sky Dog
 

Jim,
The plane is pretty much together. The last position light was wired in
today and the landing light was final mounted and the lens put on.

The panel has to come off to be anodized and then the switch harness can
be put in and a couple of more wires in the panel and it is done. I will
then put power to the circuits for checkout do final timing, WT & balance then
ready to start.

Getting Closer,
Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah

Watch your 6 KB

In a message dated 1/1/2011 12:01:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
logistics_engineering@... writes:


Charlie, you are right. They do become lawn darts when pointed straight
down. The max speed my airframe has ever seen is around 240 mph during
testing.

Are you running your new engine yet?
JP


Clive Clapham
 

Jim

No need to get so ansy.
I made it quite clear I was talking aero, and you brought in ground handling, in my book they are two different things.
Your happy with your show plane, I'm happy with my "backyard special" and if you think I have any dangley bits, you are mistaken.
Each to their own.
Flying as soon as I can.
Clive.......gobxoy


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


Happy New Year Clive,

I'm not confusing anything aero or othewize, please reread my email. As soon as anyone demonstrates they can consistantly cruise their Q at 200 MPH + I'll be all over it. BTW, the JimBob Six Pack has proven itself over and over for many years now. At this stage, people either get it or they don't. So you can dangle what ever you want from the back and its OK.

You are correct, my plane weighs 775 lbs. If you ever saw it up close and personal you would understand why. I built it with the intention of having a fast, clean looking show plane and that's what I got. I wanted a production looking airplane, not one that looked like it was hatched in a back yard. In retrospect, I would have done it the same way.

Best regards and now.............. go FLY!

Jim Patillo
N46JP
Q200

P.S.Flew to Truckee, CA (Reno)in the Sierras yesterday. Lots of snow in them thar hills.

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

Hi Jim
Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)
Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.
It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as possible.
Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal prefrence.
The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground angle.
When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.
I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.
Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop arc hurts them alot.
If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's critical how about horse power?
Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get there.
Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.
BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775 lbs empty?
Happy new year
Clive ... Gobxoy


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


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.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> 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

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

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up -- if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry




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


Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...>
 

Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/
Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."



Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...



"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.



It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.



...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"



Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


Jim Patillo
 

Morning Clive,

I realized after sending that email yesterday, I should have curbed it. It's been rainin' too much around here and we're all gettin' cabin fever.

Every one and I mean everyone has a right to do as they please, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I've always followed the plan that "if it works well, don't reinvent it, copy and improve. I only reinvent when no one has the answer. Sorry if I came across "ansy".

I wish you the very best in this coming year. Do you have a web site or some place I can see your plane?

Regards,
Jim Patillo

P.S. Tried to commit flying yesterday but the weather god wasn't working with me.

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

Jim

No need to get so ansy.
I made it quite clear I was talking aero, and you brought in ground handling, in my book they are two different things.
Your happy with your show plane, I'm happy with my "backyard special" and if you think I have any dangley bits, you are mistaken.
Each to their own.
Flying as soon as I can.
Clive.......gobxoy


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


Happy New Year Clive,

I'm not confusing anything aero or othewize, please reread my email. As soon as anyone demonstrates they can consistantly cruise their Q at 200 MPH + I'll be all over it. BTW, the JimBob Six Pack has proven itself over and over for many years now. At this stage, people either get it or they don't. So you can dangle what ever you want from the back and its OK.

You are correct, my plane weighs 775 lbs. If you ever saw it up close and personal you would understand why. I built it with the intention of having a fast, clean looking show plane and that's what I got. I wanted a production looking airplane, not one that looked like it was hatched in a back yard. In retrospect, I would have done it the same way.

Best regards and now.............. go FLY!

Jim Patillo
N46JP
Q200

P.S.Flew to Truckee, CA (Reno)in the Sierras yesterday. Lots of snow in them thar hills.

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

Hi Jim
Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)
Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.
It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as possible.
Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal prefrence.
The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground angle.
When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.
I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.
Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop arc hurts them alot.
If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's critical how about horse power?
Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get there.
Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.
BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775 lbs empty?
Happy new year
Clive ... Gobxoy


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


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.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> 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

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

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up -- if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry






Sam Hoskins
 

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:



Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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



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


Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...>
 

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building








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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Martin Skiby
 

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@...> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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








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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Jim Patillo
 

Hi Martin,

Having worked for United Airlines, I learned along time ago............its about horsepower. When our first 747 showed up in 1971, it was about horsepower. You can make a box go supersonic if you put enough HP to it.

We've all known Klaus, Catto and Lippse for a very long time. When I say we've hit a wall, I mean we've hit a wall with 100-120 HP. I think cleaning up our airframes (and thats relatively cheap) will help but not that much. The plennum is a great way to clean up drag and the new style props are another.

I think if you check, Klaus is running above 4,000 RPM when racing as well as having a clean airframe and much more Horsepower.

Over the years we've seen many builders come and go. They've had vision but where are they today. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding! You build it, test it, prove it out and we will come.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200

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

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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




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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Clive Clapham
 

Evening Jim,
Apology accepted.
Sorry I don't have a website, but have uploaded a few more photos to the
GBXOY phots section so you should an idea.
Still a bit of a work inprogress.
Kind regards
Clive....Gobxoy


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


Morning Clive,

I realized after sending that email yesterday, I should have curbed
it. It's been rainin' too much around here and we're all gettin' cabin
fever.

Every one and I mean everyone has a right to do as they please, so
long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I've always followed the plan that
"if it works well, don't reinvent it, copy and improve. I only reinvent
when no one has the answer. Sorry if I came across "ansy".

I wish you the very best in this coming year. Do you have a web site
or some place I can see your plane?

Regards,
Jim Patillo

P.S. Tried to commit flying yesterday but the weather god wasn't
working with me.







--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" gobxoy@ wrote:

Jim

No need to get so ansy.
I made it quite clear I was talking aero, and you brought in ground
handling, in my book they are two different things.
Your happy with your show plane, I'm happy with my "backyard
special" and if you think I have any dangley bits, you are mistaken.
Each to their own.
Flying as soon as I can.
Clive.......gobxoy


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


Happy New Year Clive,

I'm not confusing anything aero or othewize, please reread my
email. As soon as anyone demonstrates they can consistantly cruise their
Q at 200 MPH + I'll be all over it. BTW, the JimBob Six Pack has proven
itself over and over for many years now. At this stage, people either
get it or they don't. So you can dangle what ever you want from the back
and its OK.

You are correct, my plane weighs 775 lbs. If you ever saw it up
close and personal you would understand why. I built it with the
intention of having a fast, clean looking show plane and that's what I
got. I wanted a production looking airplane, not one that looked like it
was hatched in a back yard. In retrospect, I would have done it the same
way.

Best regards and now.............. go FLY!

Jim Patillo
N46JP
Q200

P.S.Flew to Truckee, CA (Reno)in the Sierras yesterday. Lots of
snow in them thar hills.

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

Hi Jim
Missed your last reply(away for the Hols)
Appologies, should have said dangley tailwheels.
It,s the tailwheel in the slipstream that does the damage
aerowise, that's why mine is tucked up behind the fin as much as
possible.
Lets not confuse aero for convinence, thats a personal
prefrence.
The original tail wheel geometry was just plain wrong
exaberbated when pointing the tailwheel down to get the correct ground
angle.
When the geometry is corrected they can be made to work just
dandy, but without the kickout mode. Again PP.
I would agree that the average Q2-200 is not as clean as a
Klaus' Varieze, but are closer than you give credit and can be made
realy quite good. Check out the sq plate area in the old cafe 400's
Sheehan at one point showed less than Hertzler.
Klaus's engine is anything from standard, aswell as a very clean
airframe, but you got to admitt their bow main gear ahead of the prop
arc hurts them alot.
If you want to go fast it's not just drag and weight that's
critical how about horse power?
Klaus has the lot, and has spent alot of time/money to get
there.
Sam handicaped himself in the last race IMHO, no offence Sam.
BTW what weight is your Q Jim I think I have you at approx 775
lbs empty?
Happy new year
Clive ... Gobxoy


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


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.



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Clive" <gobxoy@> 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

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

Especially propellers


In a message dated 12/21/2010 9:33:11 A.M. Mountain
Standard Time,
dmperry1012@ writes:

Wow! Thank you, Sam. Great Video.

I noticed the sound level went up as the drag went up --
if it's making
noise it's making drag.

Mike Perry






Martin Skiby
 

I could not agree more Jim, Klaus is running in the 150hp range with the 0200 and that is great for him. I was pulling the same speed out of my Vari-Eze with a Narrow Deck (light) 0320 and ony turning 2800RPM to do it! I would not advocate an 0320 on the Q200, but yes HP is king. This is a great plane and it is extreamly fast for an 0200. The Vari-Eze that I worked on (other than my wife's) had a stock 0200 and the Q200 was faster almost all the time. Not bad for side by side seating. I am excited to get back into the Q200 and just make a clean and nice flying airplane. I was thinking maybe I could buy lunch for the group if you were looking for a flight destination sometime. I am at BFL, but the Bakersfield Muni airport has a great cafe owned by John Harmon. Yes that would be the Harmon Rocket guy. I can't think of anyting more fun as to have a few Q-200 planes parked out in front of his place.

Talk to you soon. The weather is finally looking good here again. Hopefully the FOG will stay away. And I must say that your plane is an inspiraton to the breed. Nice Job!!!

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


Hi Martin,

Having worked for United Airlines, I learned along time ago............its about horsepower. When our first 747 showed up in 1971, it was about horsepower. You can make a box go supersonic if you put enough HP to it.

We've all known Klaus, Catto and Lippse for a very long time. When I say we've hit a wall, I mean we've hit a wall with 100-120 HP. I think cleaning up our airframes (and thats relatively cheap) will help but not that much. The plennum is a great way to clean up drag and the new style props are another.

I think if you check, Klaus is running above 4,000 RPM when racing as well as having a clean airframe and much more Horsepower.

Over the years we've seen many builders come and go. They've had vision but where are they today. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding! You build it, test it, prove it out and we will come.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




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

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building







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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





One Sky Dog
 

Roger,

You have that bronzed and put it on the mantel. I believe the tirade that
follows is directed at me? I think you are out of line troop.

I am under the impression that you can do a controlled power on shallow
dive as part of expanding the V-N diagram. From this information you can
calculate horsepower required to reach a target airspeed or figure out that the
150 hp VW you bought really puts out 60 hp. Jay collaborated that a known
weight at a known vertical velocity is equal to a known hp addition and
usefull data can be obtained.

You seem to have a lot to say about every subject so do you have anything
productive to say? Or do you just like to snipe at people? By the way what
are you building/flying?

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah

In a message dated 1/3/2011 12:49:22 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
scratchdeeper@... writes:



"Some one could do the dive test...."

I will bronze and frame that statement.

The problem with stupid people is that they can not comprehend
intelligence
above their own, and and while seeing the danger in a Kamikaze dive to 220
MPH
plus, they "cleverly" remove themselves from the danger by trying to let
someone
else be responsible in case the wings rips off, and believe their request
will
result in a test program where the whole flying community will
enthusiastically
climb up to altitude, dive down and scream "Banzai".

It's pathetic but funny , the guy is unaware of it, , the guy actually
think he
is really smart....and really have a legit case...and a really good
theoretical
point to prove.........while most of us, smile , shake their heads, and
roll
their eyes.


The fact that he doesn't want to do it himself, but are asking others, and
with
that request, immediately got the chuckles going...is way beyond him.

*****whats the result of the test***

Weeeeell.... eighty three of us made it through...
Two didn't survive, probably flutter....
...and one is still missing...

But we sure proved that your theory was right....what a man....you were
absolutely right all the way....can I touch your hair?

Roger

________________________________
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 6:18:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:



Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity
h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55
hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a
practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550
foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to
220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm
to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the
descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more
horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range
of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I
would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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



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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links






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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Jim Patillo
 

Hi Martin,

I know John Harmon. In fact, my wife Jennifer and I had lunch at his place a few months back. John was there that day and did a fly over with his Rocket that rattled the place. Maybe I can con Brad adn Bob into a flight down there soon. Ii will be passsing thru there on the way to Mountain States this year again.

Jim

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

I could not agree more Jim, Klaus is running in the 150hp range with the 0200 and that is great for him. I was pulling the same speed out of my Vari-Eze with a Narrow Deck (light) 0320 and ony turning 2800RPM to do it! I would not advocate an 0320 on the Q200, but yes HP is king. This is a great plane and it is extreamly fast for an 0200. The Vari-Eze that I worked on (other than my wife's) had a stock 0200 and the Q200 was faster almost all the time. Not bad for side by side seating. I am excited to get back into the Q200 and just make a clean and nice flying airplane. I was thinking maybe I could buy lunch for the group if you were looking for a flight destination sometime. I am at BFL, but the Bakersfield Muni airport has a great cafe owned by John Harmon. Yes that would be the Harmon Rocket guy. I can't think of anyting more fun as to have a few Q-200 planes parked out in front of his place.

Talk to you soon. The weather is finally looking good here again. Hopefully the FOG will stay away. And I must say that your plane is an inspiraton to the breed. Nice Job!!!

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


Hi Martin,

Having worked for United Airlines, I learned along time ago............its about horsepower. When our first 747 showed up in 1971, it was about horsepower. You can make a box go supersonic if you put enough HP to it.

We've all known Klaus, Catto and Lippse for a very long time. When I say we've hit a wall, I mean we've hit a wall with 100-120 HP. I think cleaning up our airframes (and thats relatively cheap) will help but not that much. The plennum is a great way to clean up drag and the new style props are another.

I think if you check, Klaus is running above 4,000 RPM when racing as well as having a clean airframe and much more Horsepower.

Over the years we've seen many builders come and go. They've had vision but where are they today. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding! You build it, test it, prove it out and we will come.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




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

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building







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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Pat Panzera <panzera@...>
 

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jim P <logistics_engineering@...>wrote:


Hi Martin,

I know John Harmon. In fact, my wife Jennifer and I had lunch at his place
a few months back. John was there that day and did a fly over with his
Rocket that rattled the place. Maybe I can con Brad adn Bob into a flight
down there soon.

Pick me up on the way through!

Pat


Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...>
 

"Some one could do the dive test...."

I will bronze and frame that statement.

The problem with stupid people is that they can not comprehend intelligence
above their own, and and while seeing the danger in a Kamikaze dive to 220 MPH
plus, they "cleverly" remove themselves from the danger by trying to let someone
else be responsible in case the wings rips off, and believe their request will
result in a test program where the whole flying community will enthusiastically
climb up to altitude, dive down and scream "Banzai".

It's pathetic but funny , the guy is unaware of it, , the guy actually think he
is really smart....and really have a legit case...and a really good theoretical
point to prove.........while most of us, smile , shake their heads, and roll
their eyes.


The fact that he doesn't want to do it himself, but are asking others, and with
that request, immediately got the chuckles going...is way beyond him.

*****whats the result of the test***

Weeeeell.... eighty three of us made it through...
Two didn't survive, probably flutter....
...and one is still missing...

But we sure proved that your theory was right....what a man....you were
absolutely right all the way....can I touch your hair?

Roger

________________________________
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 6:18:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea.  I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down.  :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:



Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building




 





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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links






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


Martin Skiby
 

Sounds Great Jim, Great food there.

I hope it will work out. I have lots of projects for you guys to comment on and I will offer a free lunch to boot.

Thanks

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


Hi Martin,

I know John Harmon. In fact, my wife Jennifer and I had lunch at his place a few months back. John was there that day and did a fly over with his Rocket that rattled the place. Maybe I can con Brad adn Bob into a flight down there soon. Ii will be passsing thru there on the way to Mountain States this year again.

Jim

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

I could not agree more Jim, Klaus is running in the 150hp range with the 0200 and that is great for him. I was pulling the same speed out of my Vari-Eze with a Narrow Deck (light) 0320 and ony turning 2800RPM to do it! I would not advocate an 0320 on the Q200, but yes HP is king. This is a great plane and it is extreamly fast for an 0200. The Vari-Eze that I worked on (other than my wife's) had a stock 0200 and the Q200 was faster almost all the time. Not bad for side by side seating. I am excited to get back into the Q200 and just make a clean and nice flying airplane. I was thinking maybe I could buy lunch for the group if you were looking for a flight destination sometime. I am at BFL, but the Bakersfield Muni airport has a great cafe owned by John Harmon. Yes that would be the Harmon Rocket guy. I can't think of anyting more fun as to have a few Q-200 planes parked out in front of his place.

Talk to you soon. The weather is finally looking good here again. Hopefully the FOG will stay away. And I must say that your plane is an inspiraton to the breed. Nice Job!!!

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


Hi Martin,

Having worked for United Airlines, I learned along time ago............its about horsepower. When our first 747 showed up in 1971, it was about horsepower. You can make a box go supersonic if you put enough HP to it.

We've all known Klaus, Catto and Lippse for a very long time. When I say we've hit a wall, I mean we've hit a wall with 100-120 HP. I think cleaning up our airframes (and thats relatively cheap) will help but not that much. The plennum is a great way to clean up drag and the new style props are another.

I think if you check, Klaus is running above 4,000 RPM when racing as well as having a clean airframe and much more Horsepower.

Over the years we've seen many builders come and go. They've had vision but where are they today. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding! You build it, test it, prove it out and we will come.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200




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

Good advise Mike, I took the Vari-Eze to almost 300 in a dive once. It was not the best idea I ever had. If I ever did it again I would have a parachute and a plan to get out. It accelerated very quickly and was stable, but very uncomfortable. I have known Klaus for many years and use several of his products mixed with several of my own. We raced on several occasions and had a great time. Our Vari-Eze had an 0320 in it and it took all that power to stay up with him. I would think that the Q-200 could be made nearly as fast os his O2BAD, but remember his plane is a striped down racer with few comforts and no one really knows what changes he has done to the motor. He has also changed the airfoil on the canard and made other changes that many of us should stay away from. Klaus has made a living making his plane go fast. He is now working on a 0360 powered Long Eze that will be ..... well incredible. I am building another Q-200 with speed in mind so I hope to just try and stay up with Sam for now, but I think continued refinement will produce some incredible results with this airframe. Ours will be a combination of comfort and speed. I have plans for a single seat version on the Q-200 with the same wings that may result in more speed also.

Have fun all making them what you want them to be.

Martin

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Dwyer <mdwyer@> wrote:

There are too many variables. As you descend the load on the prop is
less so the RPM increases, this in turn increases the power out of the
engine. Each prop performs differently. So now you got a throttle
setting variable, a prop variable, an engine power variable.

Best to drag a Q over to the NASA wind tunnel.

Straight down with power on the Q200 will probably go 500 mph? Would
probably get to 350 mph before the control surfaces depart the
airframe. I've been at 250 TAS in a slight descent.

Mike N3QP Q200


Sam Hoskins wrote:
Jay, this sounds like a neat idea. I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down. :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@> wrote:


Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building











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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Martin Skiby
 

No comment other than to say WOW. I think you missed the point.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Isaksson Roger <scratchdeeper@...> wrote:



"Some one could do the dive test...."

I will bronze and frame that statement.

The problem with stupid people is that they can not comprehend intelligence
above their own, and and while seeing the danger in a Kamikaze dive to 220 MPH
plus, they "cleverly" remove themselves from the danger by trying to let someone
else be responsible in case the wings rips off, and believe their request will
result in a test program where the whole flying community will enthusiastically
climb up to altitude, dive down and scream "Banzai".

It's pathetic but funny , the guy is unaware of it, , the guy actually think he
is really smart....and really have a legit case...and a really good theoretical
point to prove.........while most of us, smile , shake their heads, and roll
their eyes.


The fact that he doesn't want to do it himself, but are asking others, and with
that request, immediately got the chuckles going...is way beyond him.

*****whats the result of the test***

Weeeeell.... eighty three of us made it through...
Two didn't survive, probably flutter....
...and one is still missing...

But we sure proved that your theory was right....what a man....you were
absolutely right all the way....can I touch your hair?

Roger

________________________________
From: Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 6:18:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Benefits of streamlining Happy New Year

Jay, this sounds like a neat idea.  I might take you up on the test.

No way, however, am I going to point the nose straight down.  :>)

Sam

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jay Scheevel <scheevel@...> wrote:



Charlie wrote:

."Some one could do the dive test with a GPS to plot the L/D = Velocity h/

Velocity v = slope of the exponential curve. Point one straight down I
think the wall will be a lot higher than 220 MPH. I have been at 180
indicated in my old Dragonfly coming down final for a low pass with 55 hp.
Low drag and cubic horsepower proceeded by cubic dollars equal winning
plane. Just my

$.02 and opinion not backed by facts."

Sometime back, I challenged folks with flying Q's to give this a practical
test and help put some numbers on the chart. Jim always says ".Now Go
Fly!". Who would like to follow his advice and send me some airspeed vs.
decent rate numbers..See my previous comments below...

"1 horsepower corresponds to 542.5 foot pounds/second (or about 32550 foot
pounds/minute). So if you put your plane, loaded to something like 1000
pounds, into a steady 1000 fpm descent rate and the speed stabilizes to 220
mph, then you are adding .30.72 horsepower. If you had to go to 2000 fpm to
get up to 220 mph, then it would be adding 61.5 additional horsepower and
so
forth. So if you think your plane should fly 220 mph, then find the descent
rate necessary to achieve this speed, then compute how much more horsepower
you would need.

It would be fun to make a chart of airspeed as a function of decent rate
(holding the engine settings constant at level cruise settings). If this
chart was done for every flying Q out there, then we could see the range of
effective performance for each unique airplane. Compiling this info would
also make a very effective follow up to my wing incidence study and I would
be happy to do it.

...what do you think guys? Could you gather me some more data to
analyze???"

Cheers,

Jay Scheevel - Tri-Q, still building


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

 

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



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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links






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