QuickTalk 20 - LETTERS
- Category: Q-Talk Articles
- Published: Thursday, 28 February 1985 06:11
- Written by Jim Masal
- Hits: 996
SUN 'N FUN SHORT TAKES: Tri-Q flew in; looking wonderful ($1,600 mod)...new owner of QAC's Quickie prototype flew 140 mph on 40+ hp Nelson engine he's developing (about $3,000)...Swanningson's Quickie flying with vortilons; lands much slower but 3-5 mph less cruise...McFarland to build new airfoil, stronger Quickie canard...round the world Voyager will have a WATER cooled 0-200 in rear.
From John Derr
In a phone conversation with Applied Plastics, I found out the following information:
1. In the Safe-T-Poxy II system, only the hardener formula has been changed.
2. The mixing ratio of Safe-T-Poxy II is the same as the original.
3. If you are converting over to the II system, the original hardener can be mixed with the II hardener with no ill effect - i.e. it's not necessary to clean out your epoxy pump.
Enclosed is $10 US for 1985 membership - it's worth every penny...but PLEASE, NO MORE BAD NEWS!
Igor Mokrys #84, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
ED. NOTE: Gee, Igor, this must be a really bad time for you. Not to pick on Igor, but some of you guys think we deliberately and selectively print gripe letters and bad news. EL WRONGO! We print almost all we get (ALMOST because some is too violent to print). If 100 mailbags suddenly arrived at our door, we would print the same proportion of good and bad that we read from you - this is an ASSOCIATION so we strive to reflect the views of our membership. Anyone delirious with praise for QAC is welcome to write, call or knock on our door.
While we appreciate the value of a positive attitude, we have seen mental suffocation from sticking ones head in the sand. Now, as if one cue:
I hope to start taxi testing in the spring and then on to flying off the restriction through the summer. I don't seem to be having the trauma that other builders seem to be experiencing, wonder if I may be missing something?
Curtis Lambert #2080, Fort Saskatchewan, Canada
ED NOTE: What you're doing differently is probably that you're dealing with LeGare NOT QAC. If that's not it, try to figure it out and bottle it!
1984 wasn't a good year for me but I learned some valuable lessons and feel like I gained from the overall experience. I'm rebuilding N72PJ (Q-2) after a first flight accident - unsatisfactory ground handling the root cause of the problem. Please urge all builders to move their main gear as far forward as possible! Do not be fooled into thinking that ground-handling problems can be cured with T-tails or aileron reflexors. They cannot! The only solution is to move the main gear forward.
Phil Haxton N72PJ, Marietta, GA
...I talked with Willy O'Neil in Ft. Collins. He built a Q-2 for our former dealer in Erie, and rebuilt a Q-2 as a Q-200 for someone else. He is absolutely convinced that all Q-2/200's are a ground loop and/or landing bounce accident waiting to happen. The only way out of this potential is (1) to remove the canard anhedral and move the wheelpants in, or (2) to go with the tri-gear a la Dragonfly or Varieze. I'm just at the point of putting my wheelpants on, and have decided not to -- I can always do it later. However, I would prefer to wait and see if the Dragonfly tri-gear works out and copy it, or even start from scratch with Varieze gear and do the adaptation myself. Do you have any feedback from others on this subject? I really don't want to saw the canard apart in the middle and remove the anhedral, so I'm hoping that we can use Varieze or Dragonfly gear with long enough legs to keep the canard tips high enough off the runway. Perhaps sailplane tip wheels should be used as "training wheels!
I talked with Jim Phillips at NASA Ames about the aerodynamic effects of moving the wheel pants from the canard tips. He had done some independent computer studies on Q-2's for some friends and I when I was in CA 2 years ago. He thought that the end plate effect of the pants and the lift they provided would just about match the smoothly finished canard tips in total lift, although the drag would be reduced, so no other changes in the canard or main wing span or area would be required.
John Derr #2562, Golden, CO
ED. NOTE: John tells us that what Phillips helped them with was devising a leading edge "cuff" for the old GU canard, an add-on that would allow it to perform better with bugs and rain. Hey, you guys in CA, whatever became of that project???
Does anybody know how to convert the Continental 0-200 alternator to a lightweight alternator? QAC recommends a company that wants $300 plus the gears out of your old one. I heard that Kubota Tractor has one that can be used. Does anyone know the details and part numbers? Please call collect (205) 347-7665, eves.
Dave Naumann #2803, Enterprise, AL
ED. NOTE: I've had this question from two other people now so would anyone with the answer contact me too?
...As for QAC's financial difficulties, they may be attributable to your (country's) product liability laws but we can't help feeling that they amount to well earned rough justice. We have a Trades Description Act here, which would have obliged them to clean up their act long ago. QAC's dreadful record is well documented in your magazine and the contradictory information, the secrecy and the confusion about the new canard is just another horror story. The cold, couldn't care less, sometimes downright hostile reception waiting at Mojave is now legendary among those who, like myself, have flown 6,000 miles to visit Mr. Sheehan and his Corporation.
Mike Sullivan G-BKSK, London, England
ED. NOTE: Even our foreign friends have probably heard the equally legendary QAC response (from guess who): "Gee, that's the first time we've heard that problem." Sigh...Mike has written a thoughtful description of Q-2 landing technique appearing later.
For those of you who are bean counters, here are some data that supports the inference that the Q-2 is a dangerous accident prone aircraft. This further indicates some possible design flaws. Data is gleaned from QBA newsletters #15 and #19 (Q-2/200 flying roster):
# Reported Accidents
% of Total
* Reflects multiple breaks; i.e. 2 props, two tailsprings, etc; plus my accident: tailspring, prop and canopy.
A premise is that we Q-2/200 builders have more guts than brains.
Fred Wemmering #2296
ED. NOTE: "Gee, Fred, that's the first time we heard that problem." Someone should do the same analysis for the Quickie, especially re: IFD category. Very sobering.
My experiences added to others I have heard of all seem to indicate we have reason to be disturbed regarding the Revmaster. Personally, I have had problems right from the start. From carb/needle valve problems, to valves, to engineering (like how to get the lower plugs out) etc., etc., and in talking to several others, the list could go on and on.
Gary LeGare went to bat for me on a valve/head problem and finally got action. Prior to this, many expensive phone calls and letters led only to frustration. The new heads seemed to correct a sticking valve problem.
(ED. NOTE: Readers will recall that Arnold had an engine failure on takeoff and destroyed his Q-2 on the way home from Oshkosh.) The D.O.T. asked Ted Slack to come in to look at my engine and to become involved in trying to piece together what had happened. To date, I really don't have much info, however, Ted mentioned that residue was evident in the valve guides. This brings us back to my original problem with valves...This will be looked at closely.
Another possible contributor was silicone sealant found in an oil passage to the front bearing. Both the above lead me to wonder about engineering and workmanship.
It seems other causes like magnetos, carb and fuel have been eliminated. I will let you know as soon as I get something final from Ottawa.
I am still very involved with several Q-2's under construction in this area, as well as with 3 presently flying. My positive feelings toward this great little aircraft are just as strong as always, however I now have great reservations towards the Revmaster.
Arnold Forest #2037, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
REV-FLOW CARBURETOR ***** MANDATORY BULLETIN *****
Prior to the next flight the following must be accomplished in order to prevent loss of throttle movement.
The control locking tabs which were cast as an integral part of the carburetor must not be used to secure either the throttle or mixture cable at the carburetor. The existing hex head screw is used for this purpose.
From REVMASTER AVIATION
DEALING WITH REVMASTER ON PROBLEMS: In consultation with Dick Joh, I have formulated some suggestions for you when you encounter a problem with Revmaster in general or your engine in particular.
First, Dick is a very personable fellow with a lot of savvy and experience in direct customer contact. When you call with ANY problem, ALWAYS ask for Dick Joh (sounds like Joe). He will either help you himself, or get just the right person for you. Believe me, this will work smoother and save you aggravation (unless you like it). DO NOT chew out Roberta, the secretary - she didn't do anything to you and she isn't a competition race engine specialist. Pick on someone your own size - start with Dick Joh first, OK?
After you've tried Revmaster yourself first, if you still feel unabated annoyance, contact me at QBA and I'll see if I can help. Remember: AFTER. There has been one time too many when we jumped into battle only to find our member has conveniently edited out a couple of key facts in the dispute. We don't like looking like jackasses any more than you do. Besides, we don't have any spare time for foolishness.
Jim Masal, Editor
My Q-2 project #2153 has come a long way. I have over 1100 man-hours in it and probably another 1000 doing misc. errands, planning, deciding different options, etc. I have spent close to 300 hrs perfecting that GU canard, all before the new canard was available. I have no intention of changing it now.
Everyone who's building a Q-2 needs a reliable engine. Here are my known options: 1. Go with the Revmaster, and quite possibly have many of the same headaches as we have all heard of and quite possibly destroy your project. NO THANK YOU. 2. Go with the 0-200 conversion, but how are you going to get answers when QAC is closed down? I was hoping a stripped down 0-200 could be installed without changing the canard, but would the CG be too far forward without moving the canard or landing gear? Anyone know the answer? 3. Go with the LIMBACH. This is the main reason I'm writing. I spoke with Jerry Traeger from LIMBACH, and this sounds like the best possibility. This is a reliable, certified aircraft engine. They are currently working on installation packages for Dragonfly, Polliwagen, KR-2, etc. but not yet for the Q-2. If enough Q-2 builders are interested, they will.
Jerry mentioned that if a few of us wanted an engine at the same time, he could arrange a good discount. Currently the 80 hp version is $4,000 to $4,500. I told Jerry I'd drop you a line and ask you to get in touch with him. LIMBACH AIRCRAFT, Jerry Traeger, (918) 245-6910.
Scott Pihl #2153, Costs Mesa, CA
ED. NOTE: Anybody can put ANY powerplant on ANY experimental aircraft and that's just ducky with me. However, some funky things sometimes happen when an engine proven on one airframe is put on another airframe. I don't understand why, but my personal position is that until an engine is run a couple hundred hours on an airframe just like mine, I ain't putting out any of my cold, hard cash. Like the Revmaster and even the H.A.P.I., the LIMBACH has been around a long time and has some ardent supporters (and salespeople). If I can be helpful to those "experimenters" who want to be the first to try it, let me know how, and if you can Jerry, mention QBA.
I'm happy to report that with 400 hrs on N1V I have had no real problems; in fact, flying the Quickie is a dream come true for me. This is a great newsletter; keep up the good work. I am sorry I have nothing bad to report!
Jim Schmitt #236 N1V, Evansville, IN
ED. NOTE: Don't feel obligated to report anything bad, Jim. N1V is an important airplane to us as it was built by Ray Anderson and was the test bed for all the investigations we reported in the Anderson/Little articles in past issues. Please keep in touch regarding your continued success as this Quickie is an example for us to follow.
I spoke with Dan Duncan (Duncan Rotary Engines, Comanche, OK) about putting his model SR-120 (120 hp) in a Q-2. They have just undergone a merger and will now have some capital to increase production, build spare parts etc. They have a second facility at Sanford Airport near Orlando, Fl employing about 30 people in addition to their OK facility. Duncan was to install an SR-120 in a Q-2 in November '84 to test and develop the installation [at this writing it had not yet been done - ED.]. Cowling molds will be given to Alpha Plastics, West, TX for production. Duncan says the engine is 170 lbs and is mounted closer to the firewall than the Revmaster so you won't need a magneto box. I intend to follow this engine closely since it's my first choice for my project.
Marc Waddelow #2873, Friendswood, TX
ED NOTE: Duncan has been doing a great job of promoting these engines, however I have heard that less than 10 have been sold over the last couple of years and we have no informant yet to report whether any of these have been successfully installed and/or flown. Furthermore, this Q-2 installation seems to be (typically for a small operation) dragging on and on. I know a Dallas area Vari-EZ flyer who complains that his engine was heavier than expected and he hasn't been able to get the drive belts to last long enough to tell whether the engine will do the job as advertised. He's not about to give up and he and Duncan keep pointing fingers at each other. If you have the time, money and enthusiasm to be a pioneer, have at it. For most, however, we advise great caution - better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
An article on building a phototach with + - 10 rpm accuracy (for about $70 in parts) will appear in the winter issue of HAND-ON-ELECTRONICS. I designed the thing entirely to check the Westach on the Onan. Incidentally, if anyone thinks that they might like to make a living by selling projects to magazines, the 2 articles were worth $500 to the publishers, although I had to supply full manuscripts as well as working models.
Will Hubin, Kent, OH
My Quickie, 401JH, after 170 hrs with no damage or failures is temporarily grounded pending engine re-work/balancing etc.-mainly VALVES. I found my take off and climb performance insidiously decreasing for several months. All mixture, points and valve adjustments didn't help much. I grounded it when a compression check showed 45 and 50 psi compression. This is about half of what Onan tells me it should be 110-120 psi.
I have been in touch with AMI, Oshkosh, the Pong Dragon people, Global and the Eipper/Lotus people regarding a new, viable engine. The Eipper organization is reportedly in cash flow difficulty what with the ultralight fad dying down. So I am in contact with the British rep who was at Oshkosh '84 regarding the Lotus engine. It is my hope for a decent engine for the Quickie. When??? The Pong Dragon looks complicated and in the dream stage. They're willing to take your money though - as is AMI. For the last 3 years no production engines yet delivered to my knowledge.
John Hicks N401JH, Mary Esther, FL (904) 581-0296 Happy to talk to any QBAer.
I hope that when I get through with my bird that I will be of help to other builders. I have been making a videotape of my project. After getting my plane on wheels, I decided to go for the new canard. It has been a real headache - the instructions on the new mod are pretty poor. But I'll make it come hell or high water.
John Marrotte #2330, Hankins, NY
You can order a PDF or printed copy of QuickTalk #20 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.