Why is White so Sacred?

• 
• 

Details

Published on Monday, 13 December 2010 05:00

Hits: 632

Energy absorption & color in fiberglass

by JOHN P. GREENE

[QBA Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on pages 22 and 23 of the September 1975 issue of Soaring Magazine.  It is referenced in several technical papers, as well as in the plans for the LongEZ, the Quickie, and Q2. It is reprinted here with the permission of the Soaring Society of America.]

Traditionally, glass sailplanes have been produced with a white finish only, and even the limited use of colored trim has been a rare factory option. There are some apparently valid reasons for staying with white and these will be briefly discussed. However, the main thrust in this report will investigate the temperature rise at the skin surface of a colored sailplane resulting from direct exposure to sunlight. Additionally, means will be provided for predicting approximate peak temperatures which might be experienced with different colors and shades, but first, let’s list the major objections to a colored finish. They are:

1. To detect where damage actually occurred in a professionally repaired ship is practically impossible. This condition will prevail so long as the finish is white. However, invisible repairs to a colored structure are something else again. Acceptable color matching could turn into a genuine nightmare.
2. The soaring fraternity has long accepted a beautiful white glass sailplane. Primary concern involves things like performance, cost, and availability—not color. So why chance something so new and unproven?
3. With only a limited market, how could a manufacturer hope to sensibly select colors and shades? To produce a colored sailplane is not a simple task. Ideally, color should be an integral part of the structure. Once again, why change something that works?
4. We know that a colored surface gets considerably hotter than a white surface when exposed to direct sunlight. Considering the risks of distortion, softening, and differential expansion, there is ample reason for genuine concern. The following quote is taken directly from the brochure of a contemporary high-performance glass ship. “The only available finish is white in order to minimize surface heating.”

 

But if we choose to ignore this last serious factor, the other objections would hardly be insurmountable. If, in fact, surface heating was not a problem, I believe we would be looking at colored glass today. So now we might ask: “Why the big fuss over color?” The answer is simple. MAKE THAT SAILPLANE EASY TO SEE! Put yourself in the following picture: A hazy sky with a milky white background, a poorly defined horizon, the sun in a late afternoon position to further reduce visibility. Introduce a couple of narrow- profiled sailplanes approaching from different directions and throw in some power traffic or a towplane for added distraction. Quite clearly, a hazardous situation could be developing. In parts of Europe, this danger has been recognized and specific areas of the sailplane are now brightly colored for better visibility. However, effectiveness is limited and something additional might be required—like complete coloring of the total sailplane.

Fundamentals Review

The balance of this article investigates the relationship between color and surface heating resulting from direct, continuous exposure to sunlight. So we might well start with a very brief review of basic fundamentals and a promise to keep the technical aspects of such a discussion to the barest minimum.

Sunlight, a form of energy, cannot be detected until it strikes an object and is converted into useful light or heat. Light-colored and shiny surfaces generally tend to reflect radiant thermal energy (sunlight). Dark surfaces absorb this energy. If a surface did, in fact, absorb most of the sunlight falling on it, the energy gained would manifest itself in the form of heat—the surface would quickly get hot. Now what happens when a pigment is added to color the surface? Loosely defined, a pigment is a substance which absorbs some colors and predominantly reflects others. Sunlight contains all the colors of the spectrum—the total visible band from red to violet including orange, yellow, green, and blue. Each of these colors has its own wave length; different pigments have the unique capability of sorting out these wave lengths—absorbing some while reflecting others. The human eye receives these reflections as sensible color. Very pure white will reflect about 90% of the total light shining on it and there is little storage of heat. The purest black will absorb about 95% of the total light shining on it and the substantial temperature rise which results is hardly surprising. But what about the six colors noted above and all the shades that fall between? What effect will these have on surface heating?

Test Apparatus and Program

To answer these questions, an experimental program was conducted involving thousands of temperature readings with dozens of colored samples. Testing was conducted in New Jersey during the years from 1972 to 1974. To closely simulate conditions that might exist on the skin surface of a real sailplane, samples were prepared from polystyrene boxes measuring 7” x 7” x 5” on the outside dimensions with 1-inch thick sides. One face of each box was removed and replaced with a colored fiberglass panel. A number of these test samples were prepared using different colors and shades in addition to black and white. To complete the construction, a mercury thermometer was inserted through the side of each box with the sensing bulb in contact with the colored panel and secured in place with epoxy resin. (See Fig.1) We now have a tight enclosure with five well-insulated walls and the remaining sixth side as a colored fiberglass panel. Similarity to an actual wing or fuselage structure is quite apparent. Actual testing was conducted as follows.

Test samples were mounted in a simple frame with the colored surfaces aimed squarely at the sun. This frame was continuously tilted and turned to follow the sun across the sky, thus maintaining squareness with the source of energy. Ambient air temperature and surface temperature of all samples were continuously recorded until a peak was reached for existing conditions. This procedure was repeated as often as possible to assure a statistically valid set of recorded values. The term, “ambient air,” always refers to dry-bulb temperature measured in the shade and stated in degrees fahrenheit. Test requirements called for a very clear sky without the slightest cloud formation or haze. The minutest development of high haze, hardly discernible to the eye, would immediately cause sample temperatures to drop and bring testing to a conclusion. Also, the slightest breeze introduced an appreciable cooling factor and tests were conducted only in very calm air. The ultimate goal was to determine the highest skin surface temperature a colored sailplane might experience when parked under a blazing sun with no cloud cover, no shade, not the slightest breeze, and a very high ambient.

After two years of testing, significant data was sorted out and plotted on the curve sheet to develop temperature rise curves for each color and for black and white. Referring to these curves, note that the baseline represents ambient air and the vertical scale represents maximum sample temperature. As might be expected, the curves are bounded on the top by black and on the bottom by white. These finished curves are simply a graphical presentation of the highest temperatures recorded for each color based on a broad ambient temperature range from 30 degrees to 110 degrees.

Interpreting the Findings

Now what does all this mean? How can this data be put to practical use? The curves clearly indicate a black sailplane could achieve a surface temperature of 115 to 120 degrees above ambient air. For example, on a day with a temperature of 90 to 95 degrees in the shade, it is conceivable the skin surface of a black sailplane could reach the temperature of boiling water. Now there is no intention to suggest black as a finish for a sailplane. However, black will absorb more solar energy than any color (black in itself is not a color) and therefore, will indicate the most severe heating condition which could be experienced. However, for high altitude wave work under extremely cold conditions, it would be practical to paint the entire cockpit area and even some of the canopy with a coat of washable black. This would effect some increase in cockpit temperature.

The curve sheet also indicates an all-white sailplane could attain a peak temperature of 45 to 50 degrees above ambient - about 70 degrees lower than the corresponding figure for black. Looking at the color curves, we see that brown shows a decided tendency to absorb heat—not too different from black. Colors like red and green should be avoided if moderately high surface temperatures are objectionable. Orange and tan fall near the middle of the range and orange has the unique property of being very visible. The coolest colors are pink, yellow, and light blue, along with all pastel shades. Note the position of the aluminum sample.

To get an approximation of peak temperature which might be expected for a specific color on a glass sailplane, use the following procedure: Select the color and determine the maximum ambient which might be expected for that particular area. On the curve sheet base line, find the ambient temperature and move vertically to the appropriate color line. From this color line, move horizontally to read peak temperature on the vertical scale. For example, with a maximum ambient of 95 degrees, we might expect an orange sailplane to reach a peak temperature of 175 to 180 degrees under the most severe conditions. This simple iroblem has been worked out (in broken-dash lines) on the curve sheet. It might be interesting to note that during the testing phase of this study, an eclipse occurred which resulted in a 25-degree drop in black sample temperatures and only negligible drop in ambient air temperature.

Conclusion

The reader should treat the values given in this report as an approximation-an indication—of what might be expected. It is more important that the magnitude of the problem be appreciated. For every color, there are countless shades and hues, all with different capacities to absorb or reflect solar energy and it is entirely possible the position of two adjacent colors on the curve sheet could be interchanged simply by deepening one while adding white to lighten the other. Nor is it within the scope of this study to draw any firm conclusions, pro or con, with regard to the use of color as a finish for fiberglass sailplanes. This would require an exhaustive physical testing program to develop reliable data. However, the numbers which appear on the curve sheet clearly suggest that in some parts of the country, with certain colors, overheating from solar radiation (sunlight) could present a serious problem. On the other hand, we might also suspect that any of the pastel shades such as light yellow, pink, or powder blue, could be safely used as a finish for a glass sailplane. But where do you draw the line?

 

 

QUICKIE FOR TWO

• 
• 

Details

Published on Saturday, 16 October 2010 06:12

Hits: 699

A very unconventional airplane that's possibly the most efficient gasoline-powered design ever built.

by Bill Cox - From HomeBuilt Aircraft August 1982 p. 76

If you set out to design the world's most unusual flying machine, you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything wilder than the Quickie. From any angle, it's a most unconventional airplane. Burt Rutan does not design conventional machines. When he introduced the Vari-Viggen in the early 1970s, it was virtually one-of-a-kind among homebuilts. So it is with the Quickie today.

For those who may have been living on the dark side of the moon for the last few years and haven't heard, the Quickie is very likely the most efficient, gasoline-powered airplane ever built. That's right, THE MOST EFFICIENT. We're not talking about ultralights here, though few of them come close to the Quickie's efficiency. At economy cruise, the Quickie can score an unbelievable 104 statute mpg, and at 100 mph, the miles per gallon drops only to 85. Push everything up to max cruise around 130 mph, and you'll still see 60 mpg or more.

If there was anyone who didn't believe how good Quickies are at converting gasoline to distance, last year's CAFE 250 efficiency competition at Santa Rosa, California proved the point. The Quickies present swept the field in pure mileage.

Some of the tradeoffs necessary to achieve such excellent economy are a very low frontal area, low gross weight and minimum horsepower. The Quickie uses a 22-hp Onan industrial engine to lift a maximum of 520 pounds, at least 240 of which is the airplane itself. While a 232-pound payload is impressive for this class of machine (the Quickie also carries 48 pounds of fuel), it doesn't allow for hauling more than one soul and some very small baggage. The Quickie is definitely a sport airplane, designed for the sport who likes to take his leisure alone.

Enter the Q2. When Tom Jewett and Gene Sheehan, a pair of aerospace engineers who'd worked on such programs as the B-1 and F-111, started Quickie Aircraft in Mojave, California in 1978 to market the single-seat Quickie, they were already thinking ahead to a two-place machine.

Canadian Quickie distributor Garry LeGare had been thinking along the same lines, and undertook construction of the prototype Q2 in early 1980. It was perhaps inevitable that the end result would employ the configuration of the original design, though in truth, the Q2 is a totally different airplane with very little in common with the Quickie.

One of the most significant changes is to the powerplant. The Q2 utilizes a 2100cc Revmaster Volkswagen conversion that delivers 64 hp at 3200 rpm, nearly three times the power of the Quickie's Onan (a good power-to-weight tradeoff, considering that the 150-pound Revmaster is only about twice as heavy). To feed the larger engine, fuel capacity had to be increased from the miniature, eight-gallon tank used in the single-place airplane. Accordingly, the Q2 sports a six-gallon header tank that gravity feeds into the engine and a 14-gallon seat tank, the contents of which must be pumped by an electric fuel pump into the header for use.

In order to carry two folks side by side, the Q2's cockpit has been widened from the Quickie's 22 inches to 44 inches. Total wing area has increased as well,

from 53 to 67 sq.ft., and the new airplane is two feet longer than the original. In total, the Q2 is about the minimum size airplane you could imagine capable of transporting two full-grown humans.

My opportunity to fly the newest product from Jewett, Sheehan and LeGare came on one of Mojave's typically windy May days. The temperature was a balmy 82 degrees, but the breeze was gusting to 25 knots as we rolled the airplane out of Quickie's hangar. Tom Jewett, my demo pilot for this flight, seemed fairly unconcerned about the wind. As I was to find out later, the Q2's extremely low CG and wide gear stance imparts a ground stability uncommon among 1000-pound airplanes.

Despite the airplane's Star Wars appearance, preflight is relatively conventional. There should be one wing and one canard/landing gear on each side, and the prop should be mounted out front. Jewett did emphasize a few points, however. One is that the Q2 utilizes low drag rather than high horsepower to achieve its performance. The Q2's equivalent flat plate area is 1.18, less than half that of the Mooney 201, general aviation's most efficient production airplane. Put another way, the Q2's drag is about the same as that of the landing gear on a Skyhawk. Because of this, anything that degrades lift on the leading edge of the airfoils (bugs, dirt, etc.) can result in significant speed losses, as much as five knots.

When properly constructed, the Q2 should be fairly immune from fiberglass cracks, but Jewett cautioned that builders should avoid using paints that flex with the material because they tend to hide imperfections in the fiberglass. As you might expect, construction on the demonstrator I flew was near perfect, and there were no cracks to be seen anywhere.

The Q2's plexiglass canopy is hinged on the right, so the right seat occupant climbs aboard first. From the outside looking in, the Q2's semi-reclining seating arrangement doesn't look very comfortable, but it is (a good thing, since maximum endurance is on the order of eight hours). The pilot's and copilot's feet fit up into a well beneath the panel that's higher than the seat bottom. With Tom and I fitted into the Q2, we had as much shoulder room as in a 172, and he told me how the seating position had been designed with a pair of 250-pound, 6 ft. 8 in. aviators in mind. Bear in mind, however, that you could only carry four gallons of fuel with such a cabin payload — enough for 45 minutes plus reserve.

The demonstrator had been fully fueled prior to my arrival, so total ramp weight before Tom and I climbed aboard was 645 pounds. We added 350 pounds of people to bring the Q2 to within five pounds of gross. If weight in the seats was less, up to 40 pounds of baggage could be carried in the four cu.ft. baggage compartment.

Engine start is reminiscent of a Mooney 201 or Piper Arrow. Prime is with the mixture forward for a few seconds; then, the mixture comes back to idle cutoff during initial cranking. When the engine fires, mixture goes full forward. The Revmaster settles into a comfortable 1500 rpm idle that's high enough to keep things smooth, yet low enough not to move the airplane involuntarily. Both brakes are applied evenly by a handbrake set against the left sidewall rather than the more conventional toebrakes.

The wide gear assures good control on the ground, though it's important to remember that the Q2 is a taildragger and is therefore subject to the old ad-dage about the flight not being over until the airplane is tied down. Rudder pedal sensitivity on the ground is excellent, and very quick. Yet, despite the airplane's light weight, it goes pretty much where you point it without the need for constant correction.

CIGAR (acronymese for Controls, Instruments, Gas, Attitude, Runup) works perfectly for the pre-takeoff check. Unlike the Quickie's Onan that makes do with a single ignition, the R2100 Revmaster mill employs dual mags which must be checked before takeoff, along with carb heat. Trim is a small wheel mounted fore-to-aft in the center console ahead of the side stick. The pilot can set the proper attitude with his right forefinger, trim pressures are so light.

Density altitude at Mojave's 2800-foot elevation worked out to nearly 5000 feet by the time we were ready to launch, but the Q2 barely knew the difference. Without a VSI, I had to time the climb and discovered that our initial effort was about 600 fpm, not bad at all at full gross in moderately choppy air. Quickie lists service ceiling as 15,000 feet, which is a believable number in view of the airplane's performance at lower altitudes.

A pair of airline-style eyeball vents provide plenty of fresh air in flight. With so much plexiglass everywhere you look, visibility is fairly good, except straight ahead and straight back. If I'd used a cushion, I could probably have seen better across the panel, but the wing is mounted right at eye-level directly behind you, so there's not much of a view to the aft quadrant.

Because of the physical similarity between the two-place and the single-holer, I wondered if the new airplane was as fast as the old. It is, and then some. Speed is, after all, the derivative of the Quickie name, and Quickie 2 is a very appropriate name. Tom and I tried some cruise checks at 5000 feet, but the chop was so severe that it was difficult to stabilize cruise speed.

For that reason we eventually leveled at 7500 feet where OAT was 14 degrees. That meant density altitude was almost 9000 feet, well above the optimum 75 percent altitude. Without a blower up front, full power was probably down to 65 percent; yet speed settled on 140 mph indicated for 160 mph true.

Given the Q2's ridiculously low flat plate area and minimal drag coefficient, any reduction of power below optimum causes a greater speed loss than it might on an aerodynamically dirtier airplane where power changes produce little speed change. Because we were down to 65-70 percent for our speed checks, I'd guess max cruise in smooth air at optimum altitude as 165-170 mph.

Interestingly, Quickie's performance chart for the airplane, using a mid-cruise weight of 870 pounds, shows max cruise at 8000 feet to be 170 mph. We were 1000 feet higher (in density) and perhaps 100 pounds heavier, and that's probably as good an excuse as any for being 10 mph slow. Remember that at high cruise the Q2 burns only about 3.7 gph, so it's definitely a cheap way to cover ground in a hurry.

The name "Quickie 2" could as easily be applied to control response as cruise speed. The side stick responds immediately to roll and pitch pressures without the need to move more than your wrist. Roll rate is very quick, especially to the right. The Revmaster rotates to the left, so torque is to the right, and on an airplane as small as this it makes a definite difference which direction you turn. I'd guess roll rate to the right is 90 degrees per second, while full left deflection of the wrist-activated side stick produces about half that. Elevators and rudder are similarly sensitive. The rudder is so quick, in fact, that I'd bet you could do rudder rolls in the airplane.

The folks at Quickie aren't enthused about pilots doing aerobatics in their airplanes, but it's still comforting to know that the foam/fiberglass method of construction can result in amazing strength at very light weight. The wing has been designed to withstand 12 G's, while the canard, which also contains the main gear, was built to take a 30 G load. To make things a little easier to understand and minimize confusion over the Q2's actual stress limits, Tom Jewett set the airframe limit at 4.4 G's, a figure that corresponds to the utility class in certified production aircraft.

Throughout the flight envelope adverse yaw is virtually non-existent. The ailerons are mounted well inboard on the wing, thereby minimizing coordination during turns. You can slap the Quickie back and forth, left and right, to 60 degrees of bank with your feet off the rudder bar, and there's no tendency for the airplane to sashay sloppily sideways.

Stalls are about as docile as possible. Pull the power and slow the Q2 to its' bottom speed limit, and it will simply buck up and down. The canard and wing are set at different angles of attack so that when the canard is stalled, the wing isn't. This means the airplane retains excellent roll control in the stall without any tendency to pitch down. Hold the stick full back with the power off, and the Q2 will merely settle earthward at 700-800 fpm.

Such manners pay off in the pattern where the lack of a stall makes you feel at least a little invulnerable. The side stick is designed to increase pressure as speed decreases, and there's no way to trim out the additional force, but it's not significant in any case.

The Q2 does have one major drawback around the patch, however — poor forward visibility, a characteristic shared with many other homebuilts and production airplanes. During the approach at 90-95 mph, you're pretty much blind straight ahead. If I owned a Q2 I'd fly it like a Pitts in the pattern, making a curved final to avoid losing sight of the touchdown point until the last possible moment.

The flare and landing themselves are anticlimatic. Because of the gear geometry, the current airplane is difficult to accidentally dump onto its nose, though that wasn't the case with the earlier machine. If you really pulled on the brake handle you could certainly nose the Q2 over, but you'd have to work at it.

As this is written, there are about 12 Q2s flying and another 740 kits are either delivered or on order. If you don't buy all the options, but purchase the most complete package of plans and materials, you're looking at an investment of about $10,295 and 750 to 1000 hours in time.

The engine is the largest part of the package, in dollars if not in homebuilt labor. For that reason, some builders are considering alternatives such as the 65 and 85-hp Continentals that powered Cubs and Champs. The Q2 will accept those engines, as well as others. There's a turbo version of the Revmaster available that should boost cruise to well over 220 mph at high altitude. One builder is even examining a 115-hp, 0-235 Lycoming to drive his Q2.

Whichever engine you choose, you can be fairly certain that economy and performance will be spectacular for the horsepower. Quickie Aircraft's phenomenal little Q2 is the embodiment of homebuilt efficiency and the most airplane for the least money, if you're willing to build it yourself.

The Complete Guide to Rutan Aircraft - Chapter 6

• 
• 

Details

Published on Thursday, 09 December 2010 16:53

Hits: 1206

Chapter 6

The Power to Go On

Reliable, affordable, efficient powerplants have been the goal of aircraft designers since day one. The history of aviation has many examples of fine, innovative designs that literally never got off the ground because a suitable powerplant was not available at the time the design was developed.

There was one notable exception where two designers searched first for a suitable engine and then had an airframe designed to fit it. And this is where Rutan entered the picture.

QUICKIE: THE ENGINE CAME FIRST

The amazing Quickie (Fig. 6-1) is the brainstorm of Gene Sheehan and Tom Jewett, two development engineers who searched nearly four years to find a reliable gasoline engine in the 12 to 25-hp range with sufficient power for an efficient, single-place sport plane.

Fig. 6-1. Quickie in flight near Mojave. Gene Sheehan is at the controls. N77Q is the original prototype and is being used as a test bed for new improvements.

Tom Jewett (Fig. 6-2) was a flight test engineer on the Rockwell B-i bomber. He spent his entire career in flight testing new aircraft, ranging from homebuilts to jets. He was a graduate engineer from Ohio State University. Subsequent to the Quickie project, Jewett was killed at Mojave in the crash of Free Enterprise, a design under development for an around-the-world flight attempt. (See Chapter 15.)

Fig. 6-2. Tom Jewett stands beside the original mold used to form the Quickie fuselage. The cabin is large enough for a 66 ”, 220-lb. pilot.

Gene Sheehan had worked in the aerospace industry since 1964 and with homebuilt aircraft since 1973. He was involved with several home- built projects, including the BD-4, a helicopter, a gyrocopter, and a BD-5. A former University of Texas student, he is also a private pilot. Sheehan has continued with the Quickie and the two-place Q2 project since Jewett’s death.

Since engine development is critical to any new airframe, it came ahead of the Quickie’s configuration. Gene and Tom were purposely secretive in their engine project, not wanting to follow the path of some other developers who put plans and kits on sale before the systems had ever flown or been proven.

“This is not the policy of our little skunk works at the Mojave Airport,” explained the developers of the Quickie in their initial brochure. “The development of the Quickie was one of the best kept secrets in aviation. Until its first flight late in 1977, its existence was known only to a handful of people.”

The “skunk works” refers back to famed Lockheed designer Kelly Johnson’s super-secret skunk works that developed the P-80, the famed U-2, and the Mach 3 SR-71 Blackbird. Johnson was noted for a minimum of engineering drawing and a maximum of prototype building to cut time and cost in new aircraft development.

The Quickie story really goes back to early 1975 when Gene and Tom began looking for a small, efficient, reliable engine. The search included two-stroke and four-stroke engines used in chain- saws, garden tractors, motorcycles and automobiles. The search was frustrating because lightweight, powerful engines lacked reliability and the ones that had proven reliability were either too heavy or did not develop enough power.

SEARCH FOR AN ENGINE

The search for a suitable engine was outlined by the two engineers in their company brochure:

The origin of the Quickie began with the search for an engine that required over two years. Until it was completed, no serious thought was given as to what the aircraft should look like because the aircraft was to be designed around the engine.

The requirements for the engine were simple enough:

12 hp to 25 hp.
Lightweight.
Small size.
Low fuel consumption.
Reliable, reliable, reliable.

Many different types of engines were evaluated prior to making that selection.

Two Stroke: These engines have several desirable features including high power, light weight, and few moving parts. The disadvantages include poor fuel economy, high rpm, high vibration level, poor mixture deviation tolerance, and questionable reliability for an aircraft application. Several small aircraft are using the McCulloch chain saw engine. It is interesting to note that all of these airplanes are either powered hang gliders or powered sailplanes, and not intended for cross-country use. Two- strokes are very mixture conscious; throttle back with the mixture leaned, descend and forget to richen the mixture, and as soon as power is added the engine is likely to seize. Failing to lean the mixture at altitude, however, may lead to plug fouling. Most dirt bikes powered by two-stroke engines have two spark plugs for each cylinder so that the rider can switch plug wires when the first one fouls.

Rotaries: The small Sach’s wankel rotary engine has many of the desirable features of a two- stroke, and it is certainly smooth running. However, these engines have had seal problems when run for long periods at high power settings, and the fuel consumption characteristics are poor in the rpm range necessary for good propeller efficiency. Besides,the engine is no longer produced.

Four-Stroke: These engines are the best ones for aircraft use. They have a good fuel economy and tend to be very reliable. In the low horsepower examples, however, they tend to be heavy, or to require a high rpm, in order to produce sufficient power. One of the four-stroke engines that Quickie Enterprises tested was a Honda CB175 motorcycle engine. Initially, it was too heavy, but after removing the transmission with a bandsaw and deleting all other non-essential parts, the weight was reduced to about 65 lbs. This engine produced about 18 hp at near 9,000 rpm. While Honda engines have a reputation for being very reliable, the drastic surgery required to reduce size and weight could very well have weakened the crankcase and, therefore, reduced the reliability.

One might ask at this point why not use a reduction drive system with a light weight, high rpm, four-stroke or two-stroke engine? There are several reasons not to do this, including complexity, cost, and torsional vibration. Given enough time, money, talent, and luck, these problems can be overcome. Often, however, the solutions only complicate the aircraft further. For example, a clutch is often used to solve the torsional resonance problem, but then the engine must use an electric starter, which adds about 25 lbs. of weight.

Volkswagen Engines: A number of home- built aircraft have flown using VW engines. However, a stock VW typically requires considerably more maintenance than a normal aircraft engine. This is probably because few automobile or motorcycle engines are designed for the type of continuous, high speed operation necessary for an aircraft.

Industrial Engines: These engines tend to be very reliable, but also heavy. Most are designed to run near rated power for extended periods and usually are so dependable that oil temperature and oil pressure gauges are omitted. They have reasonable fuel consumption and frequently operate under extremely harsh conditions. Until recently, they were prohibitively heavy, and the single cylinder models have excessive vibration for an aircraft.

The engine selected is a four-stroke, horizontally opposed, two-cylinder, direct drive type used in various industrial applications at a continuous 3,600 rpm (Fig. 6-3).

Fig. 6-3. Onan engine on a bench at the Quickie factory awaiting modifications.

The Onan Company has made over 1,000,000 two cylinder, horizontally-opposed, four-stroke direct drive engines in the last thirty years for applications from electric generator sets to snow plows. They recently introduced some aluminum versions of their cast iron series of engines. These aluminum engines weigh 98-106 lbs. in the stock configurations, some 50 lbs. lighter than their cast iron counterparts.

After careful examination, it was determined that we would reduce the weight to slightly more than 70 lbs. dry. While this may seem excessive for the produced 18 hp, they are very well built. Further, if the aircraft is carefully designed around the engine as was the Quickie, the results are most satisfying.

Some design features are as follows:

Horsepower - 18@3,600 rpm
Type - 2-cylinder, horizizontally opposed, four-stroke
Bore - 3.250”
Stroke - 2.875”
Displacement - 47.7 cubic inches
Compression - 6.6:1

The manufacturer recommends up to 1,000 hours between major overhauls for a normal industrial application. At this time, there is not enough data to state what the TBO in an aircraft application for a Quickie engine will be. However, it should be noted that in comparison with most industrial applications, the aircraft environment is cleaner and owner maintenance more regular.

Much testing has been accomplished in the areas of induction, exhaust, cooling, mounting, ignition system, and the engine airframe compatibility. The result of all this testing is an engine specifically intended for installation in the Quickie. It is definitely not the same engine one can buy from the local Onan dealer (Fig. 6-4).

Fig. 6-4. Onan engine with Quickie modifications ready for delivery to consumers.

Only after the basic engine research and testing was well in hand did Gene Sheehan and Tom Jewett approach Burt Rutan, an old friend, to develop an airframe tailored around the Onan engine. Rutan was impressed by the demonstrated reliability of the engine and began putting lines on drafting paper. Early attempts were unsatisfactory because a low enough drag in a conventional or VariEze configuration would require a retractable gear with its associated weight and complexity problems. Most pusher configurations had only a narrow range of pilot weights.

Rutan finally came up with a novel tractor canard tailless “biplane” configuration (Fig. 6-5). The pilot sits near the center of gravity (Fig. 6-6). The combined canard and landing gear has low drag and saves both weight and complexity. This compactness lends itself to a “glue together” airplane that saves weight on wing attachments. Full-span elevator/flaps went on the canard with inboard ailerons on the rear wing. Originally the tailwheel fairing was the only rudder.

Fig. 6-5. Three-view drawing of final Quickie configuration. (courtesy Quickie Aircraft Corp.)

Fig. 6-6. Cutaway drawing of the Quickie sideview. (courtesy Quickie Aircraft Corp.)

Once the concept was established, a detailed plane was agreed upon. Tom Jewett and Burt Rutan did the detailed design while Gene Sheehan continued engine development. Most of the actual construction was done by Gene who had no prior experience with composite construction. This was a simple way to prove out the concept that the Quickie could be put together successfully by a first-time builder.

The construction phase took just two months. All three developers, Burt, Tom and Gene, flew N77Q on the first day after completion (Fig. 6-7). Then followed a five-month flight test program to assure that the unusual configuration, coupled with a new-to-aviation engine, would do the job.

Sales of the Quickie kit increased steadily. Shortly after the kit program began, the Quickie received the coveted Outstanding New Design award from the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) at the annual EAA Oshkosh, Wisconsin Fly-in. In presenting Quickie Aircraft Corporation with the award, EAA stated that the pioneering of the Onan engine together with an exceptionally efficient aircraft design in order to bring the cost of ownership and the cost of flying down to an affordable level represented a significant breakthrough. As this book went to press, Quickie Aircraft Corp. was no longer in business.

FLIGHT TO OSHKOSH

The trip to Oshkosh was described in the newsletter as follows:

Fig. 6-7. Unusual configuration of the Quickie shows up in this formation photo taken near Mojave, California, with Gene Sheehan at the controls.

The Quickie was the lightest and lowest horsepower aircraft to fly to Oshkosh in 1978. We (Sheehan and Jewett) firmly believe that any aircraft which is not flown cross country to Oshkosh should not be offered for sale to the general public as an aircraft.

Our trip was spread over 2½ days, with overnight stops in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Kansas City, Missouri. The 2,025 miles were covered in about 19 hours (against the proverbial headwinds!) while averaging 65.1 mpg, also a record. That means that the trip cost us about $30 in gas and one quart of oil! The takeoff from Albuquerque was made at a density altitude of 7,000’. The highest altitude reached was 13,500’ west of Gallup, New Mexico. The normal cruise altitude was 7-8, 000’.

The trip was both routine and uneventful. Our biggest problem was minimizing the time spent on the ground when we stopped for gas. Usually we had to spend at least 30 minutes talking to the crowd that invariably gathered. In Dalhart, Texas, we had to wait an additional 30 minutes so that the line girl could go home and get her camera.

For a companion aircraft, we took along a Grumman Trainer. We had originally intended to use a Cessna 150 for the flight, but found that it wouldn’t keep up with the Quickie! The Grumman is about five knots faster than the Quickie and made a good companion aircraft.

We arrived at Oshkosh two days before the fly-in started so we could relax and take a short vacation. Wishful thinking! From the time we touched down until we left, we were surrounded by people wanting to see the aircraft and ask questions.

It was not unusual during the week at Oshkosh to find a crowd four people deep surrounding both the Quickie on the flight line and our booth in the main exhibit building (in fact, some people complained that they couldn’t find our booth).

Gene, Tom and Burt gave forums on the Quickie on both Monday and Friday. The crowd estimate on Monday was over 900 people. As a result, the forums ran long past the scheduled hour.

We were fortunate enough to acquire a flight demonstration slot immediately prior to the air- show on several days. Quickie flight demonstrations were flown by Tom and Burt. When traffic permitted, both flew the aircraft within a box about ¾ mile long by ¼ mile wide by 500 feet high to show off the extreme maneuverability of the Quickie.

Peter Lert (pilot report in June 1978 Air Progress) flew the Quickie for a photo session with Popular Mechanics. After returning, we asked him in front of a large crowd how he liked the aircraft. His reply was, “Flying a Quickie is the most fun a person can have in public during the daytime!”

The trip home from Oshkosh to Mojave, California, was as uneventful as the trip East. The most important news is that we stopped at Ames, Iowa, to test the Quickie off of a grass runway. We loaded the Quickie to 20 lbs. over gross weight and took off at a density altitude of about 2,000’, and a relative humidity of about 85 percent. The Quickie was off the ground within 100’ of what the Grumman Trainer required.

In explaining the role of the Quickie in aviation today, the developers put it this way:

The Quickie is not intended to be an aircraft for everyone. A Quickie will never win the World’s Aerobatic Championship, and it should not be outfitted with wing deicer boots and complete avionics so that it can fly IFR; nor is it the perfect airplane for the pilot that weighs 270 pounds, unless he is willing to go on a strict diet while he is building one.

A Quickie is a fun aircraft; it is a reasonable aircraft for today; it is a creature that brings the exhilaration of flight to individuals unable to afford the machines turned out by Wichita; it is an airplane that a pilot can measure himself against—it does not fly so high that man needs help breathing; it does not require an A&P mechanic to keep it in perfect order, and it does not require a 10,000-hour pilot to utilize its maximum capabilities.

If you can accept the Quickie in this spirit, you will never be disappointed, and you will be hard- pressed to find a sport that will give you more fun for less money.

ECONOMICS OF A QUICKIE

The developers explained the economics of owning a Quickie very explicitly:

Fig. 6-8. Fig. 6-8. Cockpit installation of the Quickie. Round knob in the center is a temporary installation of a controllable pitch propeller drive. This control would be relocated in production planes since it would be a hazard in case of an off-field landing.

Many pilots who may have been considering purchasing or building an aircraft look only at the initial purchase price when considering how much the aircraft will “cost” them. This is a fallacy since the owner will usually spend more on maintaining a typical aircraft than he spent to obtain it in the first place.

Most pilots will agree that it is difficult to find a production aircraft cheaper to fly than a Cessna 150. Let’s compare the cost of fuel and oil for one year of a Cessna 150 and a Quickie. We will assume that each aircraft flies 200 hours a year. Since the Cessna burns 6.1 gallons per hour, as opposed to the Quickie which burns 1.5 gallons per hour, the Cessna uses 4.6 x 200 = 920 gallons of fuel more per year than the Quickie. At current prices, that is over $1,700 more per year to operate the Cessna. In addition, the Cessna uses a quart of oil every 10 hours, whereas the Quickie uses a quart every 50 hours.

To overhaul a Cessna 150 engine will cost about $3, 000; to buy a new Quickie engine will cost less than $1,000.

Since the Quickie lacks complex systems (Fig. 6-8), and since the owner of a homebuilt can legally do all of his own maintenance, a large savings is realized in maintenance cost over the Cessna 150 owner who pays about $25.00 per hour shop rate, and maybe $200 to overhaul the carburetor. We all know about the inflated prices of components with “Aircraft” stamped on them. Remember, maintenance costs are proportional to the initial purchase price, not the market value.

ONE PILOT’S OPINION

Wayne Thorns reported on the Quickie in Mechanix Illustrated magazine, copyright 1979 by CBS Publications, used here with permission. In a report titled “A Plane for Under $4, 000,” Thorns said, in part, that the Quickie kit represents the easiest-to-build plane in this country, if not the world. “And it’s complete even to the engine, requiring only paint and a motorcycle battery before you, too, can be up there winging with the birds.”

Moreover, the Quickie is an efficient craft aloft, able to cruise at 121 mph; when you back off to an even 100 mph, she can go 85 miles on a gallon of fuel. Construction time is estimated at 400 hours.

“Flying the Quickie is the most fun you have in the daytime in public without getting arrested,” begins the flight report. And the actual flight is described later in the article as follows:

Line up with the runway, push full throttle, hold slightly aft stick and the Quickie levitates at 53 mph, flying off more or less level and going up like a slow elevator. Acceleration feels similar to that of a small two-place trainer. Takeoff distance is 660 feet at sea level, about normal for small aircraft and slightly less than a 100-hp Cessna 150.

Instructed to climb at 70 mph, we lowered the nose shortly after takeoff to accelerate. The idea was correct, but the Quickie is so much more responsive than the craft we usually fly that we pushed too much forward stick, then too much aft. The effect was an interesting porpoise at about 30 feet—that’s right, 30 feet! —until we worked out the technique of gentle control movements.

Rate of climb is 425 fpm, but there’s no gauge to indicate this. The instruments built into the canopy panel are airspeed, altimeter, compass and voltmeter. Tachometer, cylinder-head temp and oil temp and pressure are on the left. Our test plane had a bell to indicate coordinated flight but it did not agree with the seat of our pants. After a while we ignored it and later on the ground we were advised that our pants were correct.

Once the Quickie levels off, the speed builds slowly behind 100 mph indicated. The advertised cruise of 121 mph true airspeed can be achieved, but we weren’t off on a cross-country trip and didn’t try.

The idea of being strapped into a powered flying machine that weighs little more than the pilot and has the ability to respond instantly to the pilot’s wishes was mind-bending. Never has this pilot felt more in control of his destiny than with the Quickie.

Approach to landing is made between 70 and 75 mph, adjusting throttle as required to reduce speed and maintain glide angle. Contact is made at about 55, tailwheel first with stick full aft. In theory, at least, this is simple. After all, the main wheels are clearly in view on the wingtips, and with a long runway there is no reason to drop the airplane in. A kiss-soft landing should be within the grasp of even a novice pilot.

We goofed slightly, and we were glad that the main gear/canard wing is stressed to 12 Gs. Our drop was only a matter of inches but it felt like much more. The canard took up the shock, we steered carefully with rudder pedals and applied the brakes.

[QBA Editor's note: For some reason the Chapter abruptly switches to Burt Rutan's Choice of engine for the LongEZ. I won't include most of the rest of the chapter except for the following paragraph from Burt Rutan that I hear quoted a lot in other sources.]

EXPERIMENT WITH A CUB—IF YOU MUST

Now, if you have an engine that looks good to you and you really want to prove it out for aircraft use, here’s what you do: fly it! There is no substitute for flight experience. Not in a homebuilt, though! Get yourself a Cub or Champ that is a very forgiving airplane, easy to land safely in a pasture. You are going to make several emergency landings, so plan on it. If things really get bad and you have to plant your test vehicle in the trees, then for the FAA, it’s just another Cub that crashes—not a homebuilt. Also, you can buy another Cub and get your test program rolling again, quickly. If you had used a homebuilt, you would have to build another airplane instead of getting on with your engine development work.

 

 

Homebuilt Aircraft - March 1984

• 
• 

Details

Published on Monday, 19 April 2010 05:31

Hits: 1536

QUICKER QUICKIE

Sporting a O-200 Continental and a new canard airfoil, Quickie Aircraft's new Q-200 is a change for the better with improved performance and drastically reduced airfoil contamination problems

By Bill Cox

Take one of the fastest and most efficient homebuilt airplanes, increase the horsepower by 50 percent, and what have you got? A faster and even more efficient example of homebuilt technology that will figuratively blow the doors off any comparably powered model.

Quickie Aircraft's two-model line of futuristic homebuilts has long been considered among the best of the build-it-in-your-garage designs. As a result of an extremely low drag coefficient and minimal flat-plate area, the Quickie and two-place Q-2 offer excellent cruise speed on little horsepower.

Now, Quickie has come up with what may be its ultimate two-place design, the Q-200. While the "old" Q-2 used a 60-to 65-hp VW Revmaster conversion for power, the Q-200's motive force is an O-200 Continental, the exact mill that provided incentive for the Cessna 150. In the Cessna application the Continental was chosen more for reliability than power; no one would ever consider a Q-200 and a Cessna 150 to be in the same performance class, but it's still interesting to compare the two airplanes.

Quickie's newest effort is 500 pounds lighter (1100 pounds gross compared to the 150's 1600 pounds), but more importantly, effective flat-plate area for the Q-200 is about the same as that of the Cessna's landing gear. (EFPA is a measure of total aircraft drag translated to a single, square, flat plate being pushed through the air. The greater the area, the greater the drag. On the Q-200, EFPA is a mere 1.35 sq.ft.) Understandably, such superior aerodynamics, combined with 30 percent less weight, have some dramatic effects on performance.

As with any power upgrade, you don't simply drop in a larger engine and fly away with it. Bigger powerplants are nearly always heavier, but they also generate higher airframe weight because of the design changes necessary to accommodate more power. Although the Continental O-200 weighed only about 25 pounds more than the Revmaster it replaced, total empty weight of the Q-2 was increased by 50 pounds in the Q-200 application. More weight out front meant a more forward CG, so the main gear was moved forward three inches to place slightly more of the aircraft weight aft and maintain an acceptable balance point.

The extra weight also gave the folks at Quickie an excuse to modify the wing. The goals were not only to increase overall efficiency, but to make the airplane more forgiving of surface contamination. Canard designs have long been known to suffer some degradation of lift in light rain or with a coating of bugs on the leading edge, and for that reason, the Q-2's Glasgow University GU25-5(11)8 airfoil was replaced by a comparatively new (1981) section known as the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD.

Without discussing the aerodynamics involved, the new wing provides greater lift with slightly less drag, although airfoil surface remains the same as the GU wing — 67 sq.ft.

One result of more horsepower is a higher gross weight. The folks at Quickie elected to offer Q-200 builders a slight improvement in useful load by upping the gross 100 pounds. Considering that empty weight increased only about 40 to 50 pounds, this means that you'll realize at least 50 pounds more useful load. The Q-200's top weight is 1100 pounds compared to the Q-2 's 1000 pounds. (On Q-2s equipped with the new wing, the gross weight is also 1100 pounds.)

Despite the new airplane's Star Wars appearance, it is, at least in a few respects, a conventional aircraft. It's a taildragger with a fixed-pitch prop and fixed gear. It's also a biplane that employs negative stagger (similar to the 1930s' vintage Beech). For those who think canards area new, exciting innovation, the first canard appeared on the Wright Flyer of 1903.

To find out more about the Q-200 phenomenon, senior editor Bill Cox, contributing photographer Chris Mullen and I went to Quickie's Mojave, Calif, plant to visit with company president Gene Shee-han and fly the prototype Q-200. As usual, Cox won the toss to fly the airplane. His report follows.

—Douglas Colby

---

The black clouds of winter hugged the tan/green mountains to the west, light gray streaks of rain connecting them to the desert floor. Five thousand feet above, the sky raced by at 50 knots, angry stratus eager to reach Nevada. Strong surface winds stood the sock out straight as a Mormon, pushing sand and an occasional tumbleweed skittering across the ramp.

I had flown the 60 miles north from Los Angeles to fly Quickie's newest wonderplane, the Q-200. Unfortunately, the weather wasn't cooperating. Despite past experience in half a dozen other canard designs (including the Q-2) and time in some truly squirrely taildraggers such as the Pitts, I wasn't anxious to try on the Q-200 in such gusty wind conditions.

 

Quickie's side-by-side positions pilot and passengers in a semi-supine configuration.

 

Unfortunately, time and editorial deadlines wait for no man. Quickie's Gene Sheehan had managed to wrestle the Q-200 around the pattern for a quick test flight, after which he pronounced both me and the airplane airworthy.

Climbing aboard the Q-200 isn't difficult, but it's still the toughest aspect of operating the airplane. Like most self-respecting composite designs, the Q-200 has no doors. The wide, clear, plexiglass hatch hinges at the front and folds straight up (a consideration if you're faced into the wind). Resisting the temptation to step on the elevator anti-servo trim tab, you lift your leg over the fuselage sidewall and step down onto the pilot's seat. As you settle into the nearly supine seating position, your legs fit straight out in front of you into a rather confining compartment beneath the instrument panel. Once you've put the airplane on and strapped in, you'll find the seating position comfortable. There's precious little room to shift your position. My time in the airplane was limited to about three hours in four separate flights, and I'm glad I didn't have to spend it all at one sitting.

 

Rudder power on the Q-200 is unusually effective in flight and the steerable tailwheel provides excellent control on the ground.

No matter what your height is nor how long you must fly, forward visibility on the ground is limited by the fast sweep of the canopy, which fairs smoothly with the cowling. Because the Q-200 is a homebuilt, you can build the seat to fit your in-dividual needs; the prototype airplane had accordingly been designed to accommodate Gene Sheehan at more than 6 feet tall. I'm a comparative 5-foot 9-inch shrimp and had to use a cushion to prop my back up. With a headset in place and the canopy closed, my head was directly against the plexiglass,and I could just barely see over the nose.

Despite custom fitting the airplane to Sheehan, I was surprised that almost all of the controls fell readily to hand. My right elbow and forearm fell naturally to the center armrest, placing my right hand on the center, console-mounted sidestick. Just forward of the stick is the aileron reflex control, close enough to brush your knuckles if you're maneuvering the airplane. Forward of that is the elevator trim wheel and fuel transfer pump.

On the opposite side my left hand came to rest on the handbrake, which is within inches of the throttle. Standard, push-pull-style mixture and carb heat controls are conveniently within reach below along with the master and mag switches.

Engine start is standard O-200. The starter had been removed to save weight for the Lowers-Baker-Falck competition at Oshkosh 1983. Sheehan pulled the prop through several times; I gave the throttle one pump and the engine caught on the next blade.

Taxiing the Q-200 is about as easy as any taildragger I've flown. The rudder pedals are directly connected to the tailwheel, and even though there's no asymmetric brake system, directional control is excellent, even in stiff winds. Sheehan said that he'd tried several asymmetric brake systems on the airplane but that because the wheels are located so far out on the canard, any uneven application of brakes, whether intended or not, can result in a nearly uncontrollable swerve. For the time being the Q-200 will stick with a single handbrake that will apply equal braking to both main gear.

The Q-200 is built so close to the ground that wind has little effect on it during taxiing. Because both the hand brake and throttle are located on the left, you can only work one at a time, but braking is hardly needed if you keep taxi speeds low.

I tried hard turns at speeds of up to about 10 to 15 mph on the ground to see where the Q-200's steering limits were and had no trouble recovering to straight ahead. The airplane goes where you point it with a minimum of fuss, and the rudder pedals provide immediate and positive control. As mentioned earlier, over-the-nose visibility isn't the best, but the Q-200's extremely low profile and three-point attitude allow just enough of a look forward so there's no need to S-turn.

Run-up is again as uncomplicated as possible. Each mag has its own switch, and rpm drop should be 50 or less. Every student educated in a Cessna 150 should be familiar with the Continental Q-200's
tendency to accumulate carburetor ice. The carburetor's position and design make it prone to icing, and it's therefore advisable to use plenty of carb heat on the ground and in flight in the Q-200 when conditions are right for ice.

One fine point about the Q-200's fuel system: The electric pump mounted on the panel is not intended as a fuel pump in the conventional sense. It's not designed to restore fuel pressure to the engine. Rather, its function is to transfer fuel from the main, 14-gallon fuselage tank to the six-gallon header tank directly behind the engine. The Continental burns fuel from the header tank only, so you must keep that tank full. On the prototype, a clear, plastic tube indicates header tank level. When the level drops in the tube, you must pump fuel from the main to the header or simply leave the pump on all the time.
On the first day of my flights, the wind never dropped below 20 knots, but the Quickie wasn't nearly as much of a handful as I'd expected. Despite the wide gear that tended to emphasize any wind gust, the tailwheel steering at low speeds and the rudder at higher velocities were so powerful that the airplane never even came close to getting out of hand. Ground loops might be possible but you'd have to work at it to get the airplane mad at you.

On takeoff the Q-200 unstuck at about 65 to 70 mph, and after a short pause to catch its breath and accelerate to 110 mph, I started uphill at what I guessed to be more than 1000 fpm. (Later, I timed a climb from 3000 to 5000 feet and recorded right at 1100 fpm. I'd suspect that vertical performance would bleed off quite a bit with two people aboard the airplane.)

 

The combination of wide gear and low CG gives the Q-200 good ground-handling characteristics.

It was immediately obvious that control sensitivity was far better than on any other canard design that I'd flown. The side stick is extremely responsive, some pilots might even feel too much so, requiring only a slight twist of your right wrist to pitch or roll the airplane. Personally, I've always been a fan of quick controls and found the Q-200's fast response to be great fun.

In fact, on a later flight when I was more accustomed to control response, I tried a few aileron rolls left and right. The Q-200 made a full rotation in five to six seconds for a roll rate of at least 60 degrees per second. Loops would probably be a little less friendly. While there's enough canard response to get the airplane over the top, the trip down the back side could be a fast one indeed. Put the nose down on the Q-200. and it picks up speed right now. Drop the nose to vertical, and I'd bet you'd see a surprisin0 speed buildup and commensurate altitude loss. For this reason, I didn't try loops, whichis just as well, as Quickie doesn't suggest aero in the Q-200 anyway.

 

Quickie's newest two-place uses a 100-hp Continental O-200 engine in place of the Q-2's 60-hp Revmaster.

Published load limits, by the way, are 4.4 G's, although the combination landing gear/canard has been tested to over 30 G's. A Q-200 isn't likely to come apart in the air, but there's a good chance it would if you dove it into the ground.

Level at 7500 feet above Mojave on a standard day, I left the power to the wall to see what kind of cruise the airplane could deliver at 75 percent power. It took a while for the newest Quickie to accelerate up to max speed, but eventually I saw 169 mph indicated for 194 mph true, this considering that I was probably burning only about 6.5 gph. Later, to verify the speed I timed a pair of max throttle low passes above the full 9610 feet of runway 12/30 at Mojave and came up with an average time of 33.8 seconds. By an interesting coincidence, that's exactly 194 mph.

With this kind of performance on tap, there's little question that the Q-200 is one of the most efficient airplanes in the sky. Reduced power settings obviously would yield better economy, but it's refreshing to know that even at max cruise, you can fly nearly 30 miles on a gallon of auto gas.

At the opposite end of the speed envelope, the Q-200 is typical canard. Stalls are so docile as to be virtually nonexistent. Hold the yoke full back with
the power off and the Q-200 will merely buck up and down, hobby-horse style. According to the specification chart, stall speed is 64 mph, but the airspeed is virtually off the bottom of the gauge during the seesaw stall.

I'd heard quite a bit about canard problems in the rain, and had a chance to investigate the Q-200's response on the first day of my flights. I deliberately aimed the airplane beneath a massive black cloud and flew through a light but continuous spray of misty rain, allegedly the worst possible condition for a canard. I'd been told that other canard airfoils pitch down slightly under these conditions, but the Q-200 apparently hadn't read the same reports. The airplane drove right through the wet with no apparent reaction, oblivious to its supposed bad manners. The new NASA airfoil is obviously a major improvement.

Back in the pattern for landing, I first tried 100 mph over the fence and found that to be far too much speed. Characteristic of most extremely clean designs, the Q-200 takes a while to slow down and doesn't really like to fly slowly. Handling is adequate at low airspeeds, but the airplane is much happier at higher speeds. Eventually, I worked approach speed down to 85 to 90 mph and wound up with rollouts of a few thousand feet. The Q-200 definitely is not a short-field airplane.

Touchdowns are reasonably simple as long as you have the landing attitude approximately correct. Once on the ground the Q-200 has little tendency to seek back and forth or go darting off on excursions through the runway lights. The rudder pedals provide instant correction of any slight heading change. In short, it's an easy taildragger to land.

It's also an easy airplane to build, according to friends who've put together Q-2s. Sheehan suggests that most builders should complete the airplane in about 600 to 800 hours, but some will run to 1000 hours or more. The complete kit costs less than $10,000, less engine, prop and instruments. Plan to spend another $10,000 for the latter items and you'll have a near-200 mph, two-place traveling machine for a total investment of $20,000.

There's little question that Quickie has come up with a winner in the Q-200. The airplane is faster than it has any right to be. Fuel efficiency is excellent and the airplane can carry two people plus full fuel without straining. If I had an extra 20 grand, I'd certainly consider a Q-200, especially considering that you can't buy anything new in general aviation for twice the price.

The Q-200 outperforms them all, and there's every reason to believe that it may supplant the Thorp T-18 Tiger as the world's most popular homebuilt. •

 

QUICKIE Q-200 SPECIFICATIONS Base price: $9,450 (kit price) Engine make/model: Continental O-200 Horsepower: 100 @ SL Horsepower for takeoff: 100 Fuel type: 100 octane Propeller make/type: Fixed pitch Landing gear type: Fixed conventional Max ramp weight (lbs): 1100 Gross weight (lbs): 1100 Max landing weight (lbs): 1100 Empty weight (std) (lbs): 505 Equipped weight (as tested) (lbs): 525 Useful load (std) (lbs): 595 Useful load (equipped (lbs): 575 Payload (full std fuel) (lbs): 455 Payload (full opt fuel) (gals): 455 Fuel capacity (std) (gals): 20 Usable fuel std/opt (gals): 20 Wingspan: 16 ft 8 in Overall length: 19 ft 10 in Wing area (sq.ft.): 67 Wing loading (Ibs/sq.ft.): 16.4 Power loading (lbs/hp): 11 Wheel track (ft): 16.3 Seating capacity: 2 Baggage capacity (lbs): 40 PERFORMANCE Cruise speed (kts): 75% power: 180 @ 8000 ft Max range (reserve/no reserve) (nm):75% power: 525 @ 8000 ft Fuel consumption (gph): 75% power: 6.5 @ SL Stall speed (kts): 55 Best rate of climb (fpm): 1600 Service ceiling (ft): 21,000 Takeoff ground roll (ft): 610 Landing ground roll (ft): 950