Login Form


/Last September, a group of QAC distributors across the country commissioned Mike Huffman of Owasso, Oklahoma (a QAC distributor and Q2 owner) to go to Mojave and obtain first-hand flight test information on the Q-200 using the new LS canard airfoil. Mike has about 150 hours of flight time in his own Q2 (N22QS) and wrote a report of the LeGare T-tail modification which was summarized in QUICKTALK #10. Although the extent of his report is too lengthy for us to reprint in full, we thought our readers would be interested in reading his conclusions. -Ed/

Concerning performance, I believe it is necessary to understand the history of aviation specifications. No airplane ever goes quite as fast, weighs as little, or climbs quite as well as its designer wants, and such is probably the case with the Q-200. However, based on my tests, I do believe the Q-200 can be expected to cruise in the 190-205 MPH range and still have very respectable climb rates, particularly since Gene's approach has been to select a prop which will limit the engine RPM at full throttle cruise to redline or only slightly above (in contrast to other homebuilt designs utilizing the O-200-engine).

To summarize, in my flight tests, it was hard to find much of anything to complain about. My excitement for the program and the product has been rekindled and I am currently building a new canard to retrofit to N22QS. I wholeheartedly recommend the new canard to everyone and the O-200 installation to those who desire the added performance it produces.

"The overall inescapable conclusion to all these tests is that, with regard to elevator authority, short and long period longitudinal stability, and contaminated canard surfaces, the new canard is a very, very good improvement over the old one. In fact, the Q-200 and N22QS could be referred to as two completely different designs - the flight characteristics are that different. One regret I have is that we could find no actual rain in which to test the Q-200. /Contamination tests had been performed using a paste of Elmer's Glue, microballoons and flox. -Ed./ I have no doubt, though, that any pitch change which might occur in rain would be either extremely mild or nothing.

With regard to landing characteristics, I noted some improvement over N22QS and believe there is potential (and need) for more improvement. Another regret I have is that the wind conditions present did not allow for good crosswind landing tests. I suspect that if they had, the results would have been similar, if somewhat better, than N22QS. Further development in moving the wheel forward, in differential braking, and in wheel toe-out may improve the landing characteristics. Also, it is my opinion that elimination of the 'adverse yaw' on the runway is desirable. The one thing that has improved the landing characteristics most is the added elevator authority of the new canard. All-in-all at its present state of development, I would say that the Q-200 should be regarded as a fairly sensitive taildragger and definitely not in the same category as a Cessna 150.

You can order a PDF or printed copy of QuickTalk #15 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.