flat plate area


Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

Just wondering if anyone has run across a published figure for the flat
plate area on a Q1.
I did a "gozintas" session and came up with a number of 1.05 square feet.
Any ideas,
guess's etc?

Dave


David J. Gall
 

Dave,

Wouldn't that be a useless number anyway? After all, with such variation in
the way each airplane is built and the large effect that even small changes
can have on such a clean airframe, I doubt that such a number would have a
margin of error of less than 20% across the range of completed and flying
Quickies. I recall that John Roncz published a wetted area figure for the
airplane in his series on airplane design published in Sport Aviation a few
years ago (1/90). He quoted 190.5 ft^2. From that you can calculate the
equivalent flat plate area of your airplane. If you use the performance
numbers published by QAC you get ridiculous answers, so use the numbers for
some real airplanes. It would be nice to get Ed Kolano to do a ZTGT (zero
thrust glide test) on a Quickie some day so that we could establish a
baseline drag polar to compare our airplanes against....

Hope this helps,


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <KingDWS@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:49 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


Just wondering if anyone has run across a published figure for the flat
plate area on a Q1.
I did a "gozintas" session and came up with a number of 1.05 square feet.
Any ideas,
guess's etc?

Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




L Koutz <koutzl@...>
 

Dave
What the heck is a "gozintas" session?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <KingDWS@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:49 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


Just wondering if anyone has run across a published figure for the flat
plate area on a Q1.
I did a "gozintas" session and came up with a number of 1.05 square feet.
Any ideas,
guess's etc?

Dave


Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

Wouldn't that be a useless number anyway? After all, with such variation in
the way each airplane is built and the large effect that even small changes
can have on such a clean airframe, I doubt that such a number would have a
margin of error of less than 20% across the range of completed and flying
Quickies.
Yup each airplane will have its own actual number due to construction. And a
calculated flat plate is going to have spread (aka fudge factor) that is
going to
depend on a couple of things. If your engine puts out a couple more hp or your
prop is working better, than the calc'd FParea is higher than the same
airplane
at the same speed with an engine/prop combo that isn't putting out as much.
In other words to go at the same speed a draggier airplane will need more
power.

I recall that John Roncz published a wetted area figure for the
airplane in his series on airplane design published in Sport Aviation a few
years ago (1/90). He quoted 190.5 ft^2. From that you can calculate the
equivalent flat plate area of your airplane.
That gives me about the same answers I came up with. I've been trying to
model the Q but the numbers just don't jive (to say the least).
I had come up with a range of 1.05sqft to .85sqrft depending on hp.
.85 is extremely low and the finish would have to be perfect to say the
least. Without taking a set of calipurs and steel rules to an actual airframe
thats as close as I can guesstimate the number spread.
The problem is that 18hp gives you a rate of climb near 1200fpm.
(they all do that don't they???;-]) To drop the climb rate down to reported
figures then 300-400fpm then it would appear that it's getting a thundering
10hp into the air and would need that .85 fp to see the speed.

If you use the performance
numbers published by QAC you get ridiculous answers,
Naaaaaaaaaaaaa ;-] I've yet to come up with a combination that suits
all the published or known numbers.

It would be nice to get Ed Kolano to do a ZTGT (zero
thrust glide test) on a Quickie some day so that we could establish a
baseline drag polar to compare our airplanes against....
We should write up a test procedure so that anyone can go play brave
fearless hairychested testpilot and come up with the numbers. The more results
we had, the better the avg result would be for the design. It would also help
people find out how close thier machine is to the norm and if they need to
think about getting out the sanding board again or just saying piss on it and
going flyin ;-]

Cheers

Dave
(200kts or bust)


Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

At 02:06 PM 9/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
What the heck is a "gozintas" session?
3 goes in to 5 about once......

Beverly Hillbilly's - Jethro Bodine

Cheers

Dave
(double naught spy)


David J. Gall
 

Umm, Dave,

Where'd you get that 1200 fpm climb rate calculation? I think you forgot to
factor in some things... like the prop efficiency and the (flat plate)
drag... :-)


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <KingDWS@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


The problem is that 18hp gives you a rate of climb near 1200fpm.
(they all do that don't they???;-]) To drop the climb rate down to
reported
figures then 300-400fpm then it would appear that it's getting a
thundering
10hp into the air and would need that .85 fp to see the speed.


John Loram <johnl@...>
 

For years I've had the number 0.4 sq ft for the Q1 stuck in my head (yeh, I
know, in my dreams!!). Your query caused me go looking for the source.

So far, the first tantalizing tidbit I've found was in the March 1984 issue
of Homebuilt Aircraft in an article on the Q200 "Quicker Quickie" by Bill
Cox. Cox came up with 1.35 sqft EFPA for the Q200, "about the same as a
Cessna's [150] landing gear". But he did not go into the calculation. Now,
if he's right, and the Q200 is 1.35, the Quickie must be under...... ;-)

-john-

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave King [mailto:KingDWS@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:49 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


Just wondering if anyone has run across a published figure for the flat
plate area on a Q1.
I did a "gozintas" session and came up with a number of 1.05 square feet.
Any ideas,
guess's etc?

Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

At 10:28 PM 9/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
For years I've had the number 0.4 sq ft for the Q1 stuck in my head (yeh, I
know, in my dreams!!). Your query caused me go looking for the source.
0.4 would be nice thats for sure. The lowest one I have heard about was
Mike Arnolds AR5 with a claimed 0.88. The AR5 is slick but its actually
huge compared to a Q1 or even a Q2.

So far, the first tantalizing tidbit I've found was in the March 1984 issue
of Homebuilt Aircraft in an article on the Q200 "Quicker Quickie" by Bill
Cox. Cox came up with 1.35 sqft EFPA for the Q200, "about the same as a
Cessna's [150] landing gear". But he did not go into the calculation. Now,
if he's right, and the Q200 is 1.35, the Quickie must be under...... ;-)
Yup the Q1 should be under that by a bunch. It's smaller (that helps a little)
it has a square fuse section, teenie, tiny wind up rubber band onan...etc
etc ;-]
If the general opinion was that the prop on the Onan was crap, then I think
the Q has got be down between 0.85 and 0.95.

Dave


Jon Finley <finley@...>
 

I certainly don't disagree but would add that IMO, the largest drag
producers on the Q designs are the wing/fuselage junctions and the
wheelpants. Those items alone, IF they are as bad as I believe, are enough
to make the flat plate area look rather large. Remember, Mike has these
areas perfected (or at least as close as is possible) on his AR5.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave King [mailto:KingDWS@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:54 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


At 10:28 PM 9/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
>For years I've had the number 0.4 sq ft for the Q1 stuck in my head (yeh,
I
>know, in my dreams!!). Your query caused me go looking for the source.
0.4 would be nice thats for sure. The lowest one I have heard about was
Mike Arnolds AR5 with a claimed 0.88. The AR5 is slick but its actually
huge compared to a Q1 or even a Q2.

>So far, the first tantalizing tidbit I've found was in the March 1984
issue
>of Homebuilt Aircraft in an article on the Q200 "Quicker Quickie" by Bill
>Cox. Cox came up with 1.35 sqft EFPA for the Q200, "about the same as a
>Cessna's [150] landing gear". But he did not go into the calculation.
Now,
>if he's right, and the Q200 is 1.35, the Quickie must be under...... ;-)
Yup the Q1 should be under that by a bunch. It's smaller (that helps a
little)
it has a square fuse section, teenie, tiny wind up rubber band onan...etc
etc ;-]
If the general opinion was that the prop on the Onan was crap, then I
think
the Q has got be down between 0.85 and 0.95.

Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html


Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

Where'd you get that 1200 fpm climb rate calculation? I think you forgot to
factor in some things... like the prop efficiency and the (flat plate)
drag... :-)
Like I said the 1200 would be nice. Thats with everything rather on the
perfect side.
The prop effieciency has to be down to 55% to get the numbers to jive with
the real
world. That would.be a rather crappy prop to say the least. The number I keep
coming up with is the airplane is climbing on the thrust 10hp is making
(about147lbs).

Dave


Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

At 03:06 PM 9/27/00 -0500, Jon wrote:
I certainly don't disagree but would add that IMO, the largest drag
producers on the Q designs are the wing/fuselage junctions and the
wheelpants. Those items alone, IF they are as bad as I believe, are enough
to make the flat plate area look rather large. Remember, Mike has these
areas perfected (or at least as close as is possible) on his AR5.
I think those are the obvious major ones as well. On the Q2 those
intersections
will be much more critical than the Q1 (round fuse shape verses slab sided).
Just to see if everyones on the same page these were the spots I was going to
study with cfd.
Canard - root intersection
Canard - wheelpant intersection
wheelpant afterbody
wing root intersection
aft fuse flow - rudder base area.
canopy - fuse area

Anyone else have any areas to look at?

I'm hoping a couple of peeps will get interested and do more tuft testing. You
wouldn't have to put too many on... just imagine a partially shaved flyin
shag carpet...


Dave


David J. Gall
 

Dave,

What software are you using for modeling and CFD?


David J. Gall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <KingDWS@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] flat plate area


At 03:06 PM 9/27/00 -0500, Jon wrote:
I certainly don't disagree but would add that IMO, the largest drag
producers on the Q designs are the wing/fuselage junctions and the
wheelpants. Those items alone, IF they are as bad as I believe, are
enough
to make the flat plate area look rather large. Remember, Mike has these
areas perfected (or at least as close as is possible) on his AR5.
I think those are the obvious major ones as well. On the Q2 those
intersections
will be much more critical than the Q1 (round fuse shape verses slab
sided).
Just to see if everyones on the same page these were the spots I was going
to
study with cfd.
Canard - root intersection
Canard - wheelpant intersection
wheelpant afterbody
wing root intersection
aft fuse flow - rudder base area.
canopy - fuse area

Anyone else have any areas to look at?

I'm hoping a couple of peeps will get interested and do more tuft testing.
You
wouldn't have to put too many on... just imagine a partially shaved flyin
shag carpet...


Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html




Dave King <KingDWS@...>
 

At 08:42 PM 9/28/00 -0400, you wrote:
Dave,

What software are you using for modeling and CFD?


David J. Gall
ANSYS - CFD
FUN2D/3D - CFD
ProEng + ACAD - Mesh generation
HB Pencil
Slide-rule
Coffee


Dave