Q2 to to Q200
|
Brian Larick
What does it take to switch from Revmaster to O200.
|
|
|
|
Money |
|
|
|
joe.hood@...
New hard points for the O-200 mounted on the firewall or weld the current frame?
|
|
|
|
1. New engine mounts 2. A modification to the firewall 3. A longer cowling Some will argue that is you don't have the LS1 canard you need to have it but but that just isn't true. Richard |
|
|
|
Martin Skiby
Yes what Richard said.
No need for an LS Canard. But there is a need to counter balance all control surfaces if not already done. ----------------------------------------- From: "Richard Kaczmarek 3RD"To: main@q-list.groups.io Cc: Sent: Wednesday February 26 2020 8:04:06AM Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 to to Q200 1. New engine mounts
2. A modification to the firewall 3. A longer cowling Some will argue that is you don't have the LS1 canard you need to have it but but that just isn't true. Richard |
|
|
|
Also, if using the GU, especially with the heavier engine, you will need to fit the canard with vortex generators to avoid contamination related lift degradation.
Cheers, Jay Scheevel, N8WQ
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Martin Skiby
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:31 AM To: 'main@Q-List.groups.io' <main@Q-List.groups.io> Cc: 'main@q-list.groups.io' <main@q-list.groups.io> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 to to Q200
Yes what Richard said. No need for an LS Canard. But there is a need to counter balance all control surfaces if not already done.
----------------------------------------- From: "Richard Kaczmarek 3RD" 1. New engine mounts 2. A modification to the firewall 3. A longer cowling Some will argue that is you don't have the LS1 canard you need to have it but but that just isn't true.
Richard |
|
|
|
Martin Skiby
Good advice Jay,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----------------------------------------- From: "Jay Scheevel"To: main@Q-List.groups.io Cc: Sent: Wednesday February 26 2020 8:37:47AM Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 to to Q200 Also, if using the GU, especially with the heavier engine, you will need to fit the canard with vortex generators to avoid contamination related lift degradation.
Cheers, Jay Scheevel, N8WQ
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Martin Skiby
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:31 AM To: 'main@Q-List.groups.io' <main@Q-List.groups.io> Cc: 'main@q-list.groups.io' <main@q-list.groups.io> Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 to to Q200
Yes what Richard said. No need for an LS Canard. But there is a need to counter balance all control surfaces if not already done.
----------------------------------------- From: "Richard Kaczmarek 3RD" 1. New engine mounts 2. A modification to the firewall 3. A longer cowling Some will argue that is you don't have the LS1 canard you need to have it but but that just isn't true.
Richard |
|
|
|
Mike Dwyer
The Quickie factory people determined that to use the heavier 0-200A engine that a LS1 wing with the carbon fiber spar was needed. The GU spar ends 4 feet from the wing tips and is the weak point for landing loads. Yes a couple of people have got some hours on a GU with the 0-200A but maybe they are exceptional pilots or haven't faced that sudden downburst yet... Other changes. Header tank, elevator control system, mass balancers on elevator and ailerons, stiffener stringers on back side of cowling, engine mounts. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Martin Skiby <mskiby@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Mike Dwyer
The Quickies don't have a welded motor mount like a J3. It would make the engine stick out too far forward. It would not be a really hard thing to cut off the old firewall and glass in a new one for the 0-200A. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:00 AM <joe.hood@...> wrote: New hard points for the O-200 mounted on the firewall or weld the current frame? |
|
|
|
Martin Skiby
Mike, I saw one years ago that was a swing mount so the guy could swing the engine out to get to accessory case. It pushed the engine only about 2 inches farther forward I believe. Looked like a good idea, but I decided it was not worth the extra work and weight and CG issues.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----------------------------------------- From: "Mike Dwyer"To: main@q-list.groups.io Cc: Sent: Wednesday February 26 2020 11:20:03AM Subject: Re: [Q-List] Q2 to to Q200 The Quickies don't have a welded motor mount like a J3. It would make the engine stick out too far forward. It would not be a really hard thing to cut off the old firewall and glass in a new one for the 0-200A. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:00 AM <joe.hood@...> wrote: New hard points for the O-200 mounted on the firewall or weld the current frame? |
|
|
|
joe.hood@...
Weight different between the Revmaster and O-200 170 vs 200? On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Martin Skiby <mskiby@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
184lbs vs 240lbs and 30hp On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 11:18 PM Joe Hood <joe.hood@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
My HAPI 1835cc firewall forward was 189 lbs if I recall correctly. I think a fully dressed O-200 is closer to 250 lbs but I have not weighed one. Plus whatever counter balance to get the CG right.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I do not own a Q but I have sort of done what you are considering. My Dragonfly weighed 778 lbs with the HAPI 1835cc, cruised at 125 mph, flat out on a good day 140 mph, burning 4 gal per hr (50 hp) average. After going through 2 engines in 800 hrs I decided to go for something a little more reliable. I chose a Corvair engine for a variety of reasons but it is very close to the weight of an O-200 and puts out 100 hp at 3500 rpm. After the conversion, second fuel tank to feed the thirstier engine, bigger battery moved under rear wing for CG correction the plane weighs 950 lbs. With the 60 lb increase in engine weight the CG moved beyond the forward limit. To keep my 200 to 250 mile range another gas tank behind the seat and plumbing plus the bigger battery and cables added 111 lbs to get the CG back in the envelope. So far I have been burning 5-6 gal per hour climb rate improved a lot, top speed so far low over the Bonneville salt flats 4500 MSL 154 mph I have a range of over 300 miles. Consider the R-2300 redundant ignition and dynamos built in and 80 hp continuous with the Revmaster heads. 20 hp does not offset 50 plus pounds or the time to modify the airframe in my opinion. It will be a long road to go from VW block to O-200 engine. On Mar 9, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Joe Hood <joe.hood@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Brian Larick
Thank you all. Summary
Q2 to Q200: Engine mounts firewall mod or replace cowling change counter weights for controls Weight/Balance generally for GU Canard add VG’s |
|
|
|
There have been several Jabiru 3300 engines installed in quickies. Two successfully completed and flown in the US that I am aware of. One is mine, the other was Paul Spackman’s he has since sold his, but I think he put close to 1000 hours on it and he had the GU canard. I have less than 100 on mine, so far. The J3300 engine engine weighs 185 pounds and is 120 hp at sea level at 3300 rpm. It is happier running at a lower rpm’s so think of it as an O-200 equivalent (same power at the same rpm’s as the O-200). The newest version of the Jab (Gen4) has been quite reliable with a change to all aluminum cylinder assemblies (nikosil lined).
Also, Richard K would be happy to sell you a UL engine.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Larick
Thank you all. Summary |
|
|
|
Joe Hood <joe.hood@...>
All inclusive at 185, or adds for radiator and speed reduction drive? On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:22 Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
185 dry weight, all up. There is no speed reduction drive. It is a direct drive air-cooled horizontally-opposed 6-cylinder aircraft engine:
https://jabiru.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/3300-Aero-Engine-Flyer.compressed.pdf
I think you are confusing it with a Subaru engine. There are a few of those on quickies also.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Joe Hood
All inclusive at 185, or adds for radiator and speed reduction drive?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:22 Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Mike Dwyer
Jay, My buddy has a 3300 on his Aeron Lightning. He sets his cruise by Fuel flow. At full power he sees like 12 GPH but sets his cruise to 5 GPH. It appears this engine runs really rich mixtures at higher power. He has carbs and no mixture control. Is yours like that? On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:22 AM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike,
Your friend probably has the Bing carb on his (that is the standard equipment). It turns out that there is a kind of trial and error you have to do on the Bing to get the right needle for operations dependent on the elevation where you normally operate. The high fuel flow at high power is normal and ok to keep the heads from overheating, but rich mixture has its own problems if you persist a that richness/power setting. His 5 gph at cruise is about right for that engine.
There is a lot of discussion about the Bing carb on the JabCamit engine site (I am the admin of that io group) and how to get it set properly. I did some “reading between the lines” on this subject before I even installed my engine and I decided to go with the Rotec throttle body injector. It is a direct copy of the Ellison throttle body. At my altitudes leaning is a requirement, so rather than mess with the Bing, I just skipped it entirely. I am very happy with my results. My full power fuel burn is about 8.5 gph, but I have never had it even close to sea level, so I am really not at “full power” (maybe 75% at most). I would expect to see >10 gph, if I were to be down where you are, just to keep the EGT’s withing limits. Maybe I will get down to the coast sometime and let you know.
Cheers, Jay
From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
Jay, My buddy has a 3300 on his Aeron Lightning. He sets his cruise by Fuel flow. At full power he sees like 12 GPH but sets his cruise to 5 GPH. It appears this engine runs really rich mixtures at higher power. He has carbs and no mixture control. Is yours like that?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:22 AM Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
The plans also show a smaller header tank on the Q200. On 10/03/2020 13:25, Brian Larick
wrote:
Thank you all. Summary |
|
|