Q220?


Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Bartholomew Hanson Fisher
 

It takes horsepower cube to equal drag so another words it would take horsepower additional of 100 additional horsepower would be required to add 10% drag this aircraft


On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:49 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


One Sky Dog
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


britmcman99
 

Bank left?

Phil Lankford


On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:49 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

I think I would get tired of seeing the same old scene off my left wingtip...  Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Bank left?

Phil Lankford




One Sky Dog
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Jim Patillo
 

Dave,All that said, there is no beating a Q200/0200 for fast, efficient performance. Not your daddy's airplane! And further, the Q200 is a much sleeker design that the Dragonfly because of the pre-molded fuselage sections. I'm only biased because I've flown one safe and consistently since 2000 with no major issues.Consider buying one and converting it to a single seat Q200. You'll have alot more head/arm room if you're sitting in the middle.Jim PatilloN46JP Q200Lotsahours


Rich Gillen
 

While scaling any thing up, will affect the Drag, and Weight, of the Aircraft, you can compensate for it, with using lighter weight materials(Carbon vs Fiberglass), and adding HP. Since these Q2s were originally made for a 65hp VW engine. Scaling it up say 10%, shouldn't affect it that drastcally. A 0-200 cand be upgraded in HP with a CAM
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1a

Q220?

Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:23 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Dave Covert" ydavecove

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I
love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to
hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down.

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and
shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic
results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10 (thus
the Q220, get it?) Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with
little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of
the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Rich Gillen
 

 
While Scaling any thing up, will affect the Drag, and Weight, of the Aircraft, you can compensate for it, with using lighter weight materials(Carbon vs Fiberglass), and adding HP. Since these Q2/Q200s were originally made for a 65hp VW engine. Scaling it up, say 10%, shouldn't affect it that drastically. An 0-200 can be upgraded in HP, with a CAM, and high CR Pistons. It would be best, to 3D Model the plane, than Scale it up to fit you, if needed. It's possible, to change the insides to maybe fit you also. The Canopie could be molded different, the seat could maybe be redesigned, lowered. Single, versus Dual Controls.
 
The Dragonfly, is a similar plane, but with a wider seat area.
 
Rich Gillen
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1a

Q220?

Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:23 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Dave Covert" ydavecove

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I
love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to
hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down.

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and
shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic
results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10 (thus
the Q220, get it?) Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with
little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of
the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


One Sky Dog
 

Jim,

Lots of options and the Q started it all. Not trying to take anything away from the Q design. We all know the Dragonfly design comes from the Q1 design. You have to admit big guys fit better in    Dragonflies.

Wingman,

Charlie


On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:51 AM, "logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Dave,All that said, there is no beating a Q200/0200 for fast, efficient performance. Not your daddy's airplane! And further, the Q200 is a much sleeker design that the Dragonfly because of the pre-molded fuselage sections. I'm only biased because I've flown one safe and consistently since 2000 with no major issues.Consider buying one and converting it to a single seat Q200. You'll have alot more head/arm room if you're sitting in the middle.Jim PatilloN46JP Q200Lotsahours


Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


One Sky Dog
 

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


Bob (Desert Bob) Johnson
 

That would be 1981 at Oshkosh.

Bob Johnson,

Ogden, Utah



From: "Builders, Quickie"
To: "Builders, Quickie"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:04:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q220?

 

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ



Dave Covert <davecove@...>
 

So the answer to why the Dragonfly has so much more wing area is simply 'because that's what Bob Walters wanted'? If so, I can live with that answer.

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ


One Sky Dog
 

Correction 1980 


On Aug 12, 2014, at 7:04 PM, "Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

Dave,

Why? The Q1 inspired the Q2 and the Dragonfly. They were designed at the same time by different designers who were unaware of each other's activities. Jaws dropped at Oshkosh in 1989 and the lawsuits began.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 12, 2014, at 6:32 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area"

Why? Is it that much heavier? Or is Dragonfly just allergic to QAC's amount of wing loading?

Dave


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Dave,

The Dragonfly has approximately 2 times the wing area, up pops that drag thing again.

The Dragonfly has a lower wing loading and a lower power loading. A O-200 will take the airframe to max speed of 180 mph. Reg Clark had a fast one Expresso with a turbocharged Subaru.

They land slower take off slower climb through high density air better and have tons of rudder authority.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, Utah


On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:30 PM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

"getting there a little slower"

They look so similar...  why are Dragonflies slower? Is there 'frontal area' that much larger?

Dave


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

If you love the plan form of the Q's and do not mind getting there a little slower you might want to sit in a Dragonfly. They are slab built so a little more shoulder room and the canopy is less rounded for more head room.

I am 6'3 and currently 195 lb. dressed, I have had a ride in Q200's and know the curved sideways posture.

My Dragonfly is tight but doable with enough headroom to wear a hat and head set with neck straight. I had to move the rudder pedals forward from the plans position. There is also an option of moving the seat back during the build. A project Dragonfly can be modified easier than a Q for high percentile people.

Regards,

Charlie Johnson
Ogden, UT


On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:49 AM, "Dave Covert davecove@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

I had the opportunity to sit in a Q200 a couple of weeks ago, and while I love the aircraft, the cockpit lip bit into my left deltoid and I had to hold my head at a 45 degree angle to get the canopy down. 

At 6'3" I am about 1.10 times the size of the average male in height and shoulder width and so I have to wonder what would be the aerodynamic results of building a Q200 with all dimensions multiplied by 1.10  (thus the Q220, get it?)  Assume a 110hp-120hp motor.

My impression of the overbuilt physical strength of the Q200 leaves me with little doubt about the layup schedule being able to handle the weight of the additional material.

Any thoughts/opinions/observations?

--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ




--
Thank you for your time,
ɘvɒⱭ