BRS Chute in a Q2
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready
to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization
that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's
just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking
to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to
make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
419.290.3773
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no more
Do we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]wrote:
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
419.290.3773
From: Q-LIST@... on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no moreDo we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no moreDo we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at. Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.
Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.
Matthew Curcio
419.290.3773
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no moreDo we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at. Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.
Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone. Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.
I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.
Sam HoskinsQ-200, 2,000+ hours
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no moreDo we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
I agree with Sam. If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!Paul FisherQ-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 yearsOn Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at. Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.
Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone. Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.
I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.
Sam HoskinsQ-200, 2,000+ hours
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no moreDo we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Charlie oneskydog@... [Q-LIST]wrote:Who would engineer this BRS? Jim Handbury died developing the SR22 system if I remember correct. What would you use as a test vehicle to assure you that the whole system works reliably? Just asking?Another factor is parachutes do not always work as planned. I experienced a structural flight vehicle failure and subsequent parachute failure. It was not a Q bird but still unexpected double failure.Regards,CharlieI agree with Sam. If you don't feel comfortable with landing speeds, then you have the wrong airplane.But it's your airplane, if you want a chute, do it!Paul FisherQ-200, N17PF. ~1,650 hours over 27 yearsOn Dec 13, 2017 2:26 PM, "Matthew Curcio mlcurcio89@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
Agreed but most people have the battery mounted close to the same fuselage station you would want to mount the BRS at. Relocate the battery to in front of the passengers feet and I think it would balance out.
Not sure why you say that as far as it being the wrong aircraft. There are a lot of factors but in general the lighter the aircraft the more realisitic a BRS is. I think the only good justification for a BRS is added safety for single engine airplanes flown in environments where an engine failure is critical. I would say for any cross country airplane that lands at speeds greater than say 60mph an engine failure is critical if you're missions take you, basically, outside of the Midwest. It seems like the quickie is a good candidate.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of Sam Hoskins sam.hoskins@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BRS Chute in a Q2I'm pretty sure the only place you could mount it would be aft of the rear wing, in the tail cone. Sounds like a pretty adverse effect on W&B.
I can't see it. If someone felt they had to have a BRS, I would say they picked the wrong aircraft.
Sam HoskinsQ-200, 2,000+ hours
Anybody installed a BRS chute in there Q2? seems like it would add buckets of safety depending on your mission. I think if you could wrap the straps around the main wing and have the chute blow out in a panel just aft of the main wing it would be very doable. Since my airplanes (and most) split in that location installation is very doable. Obviously there are some structural and W&B concerns to look at but I am confident they can be analyzed and mitigated.
How this came up. . .I have been in talks with a fellow up in Alaska who is looking into buying the sister ship to the Q200 I recently (6 months ago) purchased and have put about 20 hours on. I'm getting ready to fly mine out here (Mojave, CA) from Ohio just after Christmas. He is located up in Alaska and would be looking to fly the Q200 he is looking up that way from the same airport as mine is at in Ohio. Shortly after moving out here I came to the realization that everywhere I have intentions of flying is very unsafe for the quickie in terms of making a safe landing following an engine failure For example. I'd like to be able to regularly fly to into John Wayne which includes flying over mountains and city. That's just an example but most of my missions with it will be flying over mountainous terrain with not particularly straight or level roads to follow and then over highly populated areas where highways are your best option. I mentioned to the guy in Alaska looking to buy the Q200 a similar concern -while he doesn't have to worry about the city areas almost anywhere he flies an engine failure would total the airplane and likely be a death sentence. In most airplanes you can slow down enough (ie - less than highway speeds) to make engine failures in these areas survivable. He brought up the BRS Idea which I thought was a great point I hadn't considered and would give a lot of safe utility and dare I say it - open up some potential of night flying.
Matthew Curcio
From: Q-LIST@... <Q-LIST@...> on behalf of joshuabhall1021@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Looks like Quickheads is no moreDo we have an estimated time of arrival for this resurrection?
Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.
Well, you need to point the 152 down a little more just before impact.
Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.
I also agree with Paul and Sam. If you feel your plane is to fast on landing or that it will be unreliable flying over populated areas (I fly in SF and LA area) you may want to consider a different horse.
As far as Ryan’s statement about a Q landing like a 152 goes, its obvious he doesn’t fly a Q.
Regarding the BRS system on a Q, go ahead and mount one to your plane (costs more than you paid for the whole plane). Test,test,test, gather as much empirical evidence as possible and then return here and publish the results. We may show some interest then.
I can’t tell you how many times we’ve heard this stuff from people who never end up with a successful Q.
While this site is about Q’s, we set it up in 2000 to promote building and flying, not reinventing the plane. Experimentation is wonderful but not real helpful in getting pilots to finish their projects.
I fly my Q weekly as a commuter and “Baby” rarely lets me down.
Jim Patillo
N46JP
There is not enough of a difference to pretend youre landing the space shuttleOn Wednesday, December 13, 2017, 9:03:19 PM MST, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:Well, you need to point the 152 down a little more just before impact.
Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25 PM, logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]wrote:Mathew,
I also agree with Paul and Sam. If you feel your plane is to fast on landing or that it will be unreliable flying over populated areas (I fly in SF and LA area) you may want to consider a different horse.
As far as Ryan’s statement about a Q landing like a 152 goes, its obvious he doesn’t fly a Q.
Regarding the BRS system on a Q, go ahead and mount one to your plane (costs more than you paid for the whole plane). Test,test,test, gather as much empirical evidence as possible and then return here and publish the results. We may show some interest then.
I can’t tell you how many times we’ve heard this stuff from people who never end up with a successful Q.
While this site is about Q’s, we set it up in 2000 to promote building and flying, not reinventing the plane. Experimentation is wonderful but not real helpful in getting pilots to finish their projects.
I fly my Q weekly as a commuter and “Baby” rarely lets me down.
Jim Patillo
N46JP
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Mike Dwyer q2pilot@... [Q-LIST]wrote:Science 101.... The Kinetic energy of an object goes up with the square of the velocity. So a C150 at 35 mph is say 35 squared or 1225. A Q2 at 70 mph is 4900 or 4 times more than a C150!That's a huge difference.Mike Q200On Dec 13, 2017 11:44 PM, "ryan goodman elboy0712@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:There is not enough of a difference to pretend youre landing the space shuttleOn Wednesday, December 13, 2017, 9:03:19 PM MST, Phil Lankford britmcman@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:Well, you need to point the 152 down a little more just before impact.
Ok, I hope you are jesting about the landing speed being the same as a 152, I can tell you mine lands a LOT faster than a 152.
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:59 AM, logistics_engineering@... [Q-LIST]wrote:“What’s the issue with landing speed. It’s basically the same as a 152”..........
You are correct Ryan. I completely mis read what you said. Somebody pass the popcorn.
Best regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP - Q200
Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 43 Knots
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb.
Wing Loading (gross) 10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading 15.2 lbs./hp
Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 63 Knots
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb.
Wing Loading (gross) 17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading 12 lbs./hp
A better comparison for the Q200 would be a Falco Series IV landing with no flaps (stall of 62 knots). Falco has a wing loading of 16.8 lb./sq. ft. and power loading of 11.3 lbs./hp. The Falco is not exactly a 152.
For a factory aircraft speed comparison to the Q200, think Comanche 300, landing with no flaps (and maybe with the gear up!).
Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, still building
The use of the BRS on the SR-22 leads to a totalling of the airframe because of the lines ripping through the skins. It was difficult to get for Cirrus owners to get hull insured for quite some time, since most other planes can be emergency landed and repaired, but the minute you pull the chute on the Cirrus, it is totaled. I would expect a similar destruction for a Quickie. The damage would be about the same as riding it down with no BRS.
There have been a number of emergency landings of Q2's, leading to damaged aircraft but many were still repairable and occupants suffered mostly minor injuries, even in cases where the entire airframe was toast. Barring a fire on landing, the Q2 airframe protects the occupants pretty well despite the high landing speeds.
If the wings and control systems are functional and you don't hit any large obstructions prior to putting the wheels on the ground, you are probably going to do as well or better than you would with a BRS deployed.
Also, you have a little more choice about where to put it down if you glide it down. With the chute out, you take what you get.
There was one case of a pilot on this group who had an engine out while flying over the mountains in British Columbia or Western Alberta (not sure exactly where). He put it down on a winding mountain highway and was not injured seriously. I think more damage was done to the plane by the rescue crew than by the forced landing, if I recall correctly.
As far as your plane based in Mojave, You have Edwards, Lancaster, Victorville, Barstow, even Tehachapi or Bakersfield. I think you are golden if you need an emergency field. Just keep sufficient altitude.
Alaska is another story. Most fields are only suitable for the more utility class aircraft. I would not recommend anyone base a Q200 in Alaska.
Cheers,
Jay
Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 43 Knots
Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 63 Knots
This is a difference of 20 knots, not 7mph. Big difference there.
Sorry Jay, but that was not what I saw as an apples to apples comparison and here is why. I’m happy to be wrong here, but this is where I was coming from.
Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in in the area of 70 for final approach(Though the book says 85 which definitely kills my original comparison). It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly it all the way down to avoid bucking. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied. That is my logic for the 7mph difference i mentioned and my reason for the comparison on approach speeds. I wont for a second suggest that a similar speed= similar skill required to land it. I’m aware that there is a reason it is highly advised that folks get some real dual time with an experienced pilot in a q before forging out alone.
Matt, let me finish that formula for you. You know “Science 101” K.E. = 1/2 m v2 and I will do so with Jays numbers just to keep this on you guys side of the argument.
Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 43 Knots (22m/s)
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb. (757kg)
Wing Loading (gross) 10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading 15.2 lbs./hp
Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 63 Knots (32m/s)
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb. (544kg)
Wing Loading (gross) 17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading 12 lbs./hp
.5(757) x (22)2 = 183194 kg-m2/s2
.5(544)x(32)2 = 131648 kg-m2/s2
Approach speed in a 152 is 55kts(63mph). Jim is correct that I have not flown my Q yet, but my understanding is most come in on the area of 70 for final approach. It's also my understanding(correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't want to stall a q down onto the runway like you can with a Cessna, that you must fly out all the way down. So, assuming you're flying them both all the way down, those stall numbers are not an accurate comparison, and the final approach numbers should be applied.Here are the relevant data:
Cessna 152
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 43 Knots
Wing Area 160 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1670 lb.
Wing Loading (gross) 10.43 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading 15.2 lbs./hp
Q-200
Stall Speed Landing Configuration 63 Knots
Wing Area 67 sq. ft.
Gross weight 1200 lb.
Wing Loading (gross) 17.9 lbs./sq. ft.
Power Loading 12 lbs./hp
A better comparison for the Q200 would be a Falco Series IV landing with no flaps (stall of 62 knots). Falco has a wing loading of 16.8 lb./sq. ft. and power loading of 11.3 lbs./hp. The Falco is not exactly a 152.
For a factory aircraft speed comparison to the Q200, think Comanche 300, landing with no flaps (and maybe with the gear up!).
Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q2, still building
The Q-pilots that are responding to your posts are telling you what to expect. They will quit responding if you do not show some degree of eagerness to learn.
As far as Q200 pattern speeds go, most of the Q200 pilots I have talked to turn base to final around 100mph, over the fence at 80-85 and touch down around 75 or so. If you don't believe me, have a look at the paper posted on the left side of the panel that belongs to one of the guys that has the most Q200 hours:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CIq_IiXPXKA/WGfW4K_ZSBI/AAAAAAAAILA/XJJGWr7YMe0a6nRyPaVxd7_W6d_4VQADwCLcB/s1600/IMAG3841.jpg
You do not land a 152 at the approach speed. If you try that, it will not stay on the ground when you flare. Don't know how much flight time you have, but the guys on this forum that you are talking to probably have hundreds of thousands of hours in total, and they have at least many thousands of those hours in Q's. Pay attention to what they say, their advice will serve you well.
Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building