QuickTalk 12 - LETTERS
- Category: Q-Talk Articles
- Published: Monday, 31 October 1983 06:11
- Written by Jim Masal
- Hits: 1089
"Monday, August 1st, I lost a good friend in a Varieze that he built over these past six years. The Varieze was a fine plane, but my friend chose to show off his six years of very fine workmanship by doing a roll close to the ground and show some friends how well the aircraft would handle.
My friend had a good flying record. He was a CFII and a Captain for Lear Jet out of Tucson.
Yes, it took six years to build his Varieze, six days he flew it and six hours flying time to kill himself, just because some friends (not me) just HAD to see his plane fly..."
Horace Toler (#2362), Tucson, AZ
Regarding two crash reports by J. P. Stroud (cross-wind types) in Issue #11, I've landed several times at controlled airports with the tower reporting winds 210 degrees at 17 with the active being 17R. Mind you, it was delicate, but I was able to track the runway centerline.
...Would you put a line in the next QUICKTALK issue asking if any of our members might be working on vapor-type carburetion systems and give my name and address. I would appreciate it..."
Michael Conlin (#60), 50 Glen Eagle Dr., Conroe, TX 77302
"On Quickie #317 we had the usual rough engine problems, plus an unacceptable vibration at 2500. After 30 minutes of flight, my feet became numb by the buzzing of the pedals. The Kevlar mount helped a lot. Equalizing the compression was not easy. The Onan mechanic said that they do not accept the compression test unless it is taken just after run up on a hot engine. The oil rolls off the top of the horizontal pistons, which may cause a leak and a false test. New rubber mounts did nothing. We use 1-25/32" sleeves. As for the vibration, QAC said to measure the length of each blade of the propeller. There was a small difference. We shaved off the Varathane plus .020" on the longer side and then repainted. The worst of the vibration evidently came from the prop, since after rebalance, we now have a relatively smooth engine with no bad vibration.
My homemade prop balance is the smooth edge of a couple of leveled old hack saw blades for the knife edges. The shaft must be straight. We use a blank from which metal bits are made. The shaft should not turn in the hole. Horizontal balance is achieved by adding a square inch or so of Varathane to the prop tips. Vertical balance usually takes more weight on the prop hubs. We have a couple of square inches of thin brass sheeting placed just ahead of the aluminum spinner, with two punched holes for the prop bolts. The balance in any position is very good. When balancing the prop, all bolts, nuts, washers and spinner must be on the prop.
So, some problems have been solved, but we cannot do with QUICKTALK. Something has to be done about that weak rate of climb."
Vic Schatz (#317), Athol, ID
"On the new (Q2) canard, the hot wire templates for the elevator slot cores are mis-numbered. In the area of #17 - #22, the numbers don't correspond in placement with all three templates."
Bill Mueller (#2758), Lincoln, NE
"I would like to offer the following details concerning the building and initial flight testing of N2QQ (Kit #2203). Time to build: 1875 hours over a 15 month period; Empty weight (incl.radio): 536.6 lbs.; Header tank capacity: 5.8 gal.; Main tank capacity: 16 gallons. Weight and balance checks found the empty CG to be located at 40.52", so with a full header tank and 182 lb. pilot, 30.5 pounds of ballast were required at about FS88 (baggage compartment) to move the CG to 46", slightly off MID-CG.
With these conditions, low speed taxi tests were completed without incident. During the first day of high-speed taxi tests, a puffy 90-degree crosswind of 5 to 8 knots was blowing and a King Air was waiting at the hold line as a very nervous pilot lined up on the centerline for the run. The throttle was advanced to about 2500 RPM and N2QQ began to roll. At about this same time a gust hit the tail and the aircraft made a beeline for the upwind runway edge. Panic! Retard the throttle and apply left rudder. No response! After a bumpy trip through weeds, the thought came to mind...How about the brakes? A somewhat overzealous application caused the tail to rise, allowing the wheel pant leading edges to contact the ground. (It's a nervous feeling to be staring at the ground immediately under your prop spinner.) When the tail came down, there went the tailspring! Fortunately, the prop had stopped horizontally and sustained no damage.
Three weeks were spent acquiring and installing a new tailspring. The next attempt was made at 6 a.m. with the wind dead calm. On the fourth run, a glance at the altimeter showed 400' and climbing. Another glance at the tach showed the needle banging on the case 300 RPM over the red line! (This condition had been noted during static runup. The Cowley 45" pitch prop could not handle full power.) Back on the throttle to 2800 RPM. Scanning the instruments showed the oil temp in the yellow arc, the CHT also in the yellow and the airspeed at....80 MPH? A prompt return to the airport was made while trying to remember all the instruction concerning landing tail low, etc. She sat down without a bump and calmly rolled to a stop.
A check of the pitot line found that a 'dirt dobber' had left a solid plug of mud inside the tube. This, of course, was cleaned out. A review of the plans brought to my attention that I had misinterpreted the cowl inlet opening dimensions. The cowl was reworked to make the OPENING the size called out on the plans AFTER the 3/8" bondo radius was added. The next flight produced an oil temperature about 50-60 degrees lower (well in the green), however the CHT was still in the yellow during climbout, but came back to the top of the green in cruise. Indications showed 105 MPH at about 2800 MPH while the elevator position showed 8 degrees T.E. down in level flight.
Following advice from Gene Sheehan at QAC, I rechecked the CG and canard surface condition. During the course of construction, I had discovered I was no spray painter. There was a small degree of 'orange peel' on the upper canard surface, so small that it had to be pointed out, even to other homebuilders. The canard upper surface was reworked starting with wet 400 grit paper, graduating to 600 grit and then machine grade rubbing compound. The next flight, one hour in the pattern, showed the new level flight elevator position to be 3 to 4 degrees T.E. UP! Cruise at 110-115 MPH at 2850 RPM. The moral of this story is that even the removal of almost invisible 'orange peel' changed the elevator deflection for level flight by almost 12 degrees!...
ADDED NOTE: On August 6, after about 10 hours flight time and 18 landings, shortly after touchdown I was again caught by a crosswind gust, estimated at about 8 knots. No amount of rudder input had any effect. N2QQ ran off the edge of the runway and flipped upside down, resulting in a smashed canopy, a broken prop and severe main wing damage. No injury except minor cuts. I can verify that it is possible to get out of a Q2 when it is upside down!"
Max Stupar (#2203), Ft. Walton Beach, FL
"I have recently completed the Koenig engine conversion on my Quickie and have flown it about 20 hours. I have several thoughts that I would like to share with other users of this engine.
The engine is smooth and quiet, and the electric start feature is a dream! Maintenance has been minimal. My fuel consumption is about 2.8 GPH. The kit as supplied by Stubbs Aero Products was very complete, but it took me quite a bit longer than the advertised 25 hours to retrofit the new engine.
Performance to date has been only slightly better than with the Onan. A little bit higher rate of climb but 8-10 MPH slower cruise. (Some of the speed loss may be due to lack of a spinner, which failed on its first flight and has been discarded.)
I damaged my engine and must caution the 15 buyers who have the Koenig SD 570. When the stop/run switch is in the kill position, the four ignition modules are grounded. I was installing my battery when my wrench slipped. For a split second, I had a direct short circuit from battery positive to engine ground. All four modules were instantaneously destroyed. (They contain numerous solid-state devices.) I called Dieter Koenig in Berlin and he sent me four new ones, but it took two weeks to get them and cost about $130.
One important safety hint. The kill circuit for this engine utilizes a small plastic buss mounted on the rear of the engine crankcase. Engine heat can (and will) melt it, causing one or more cylinders to short out. Replace it with a new heavy duty one from Radio Shack and locate it away from the hot engine. (The factory has since redesigned this feature.)
Fred Stubbs told me that due to the poor condition of the Canadian economy, he may be forced to close his shop. This would be regrettable as his builder support to me has been very good.
I would like to hear from other builders using this engine concerning their weight and balance. In order to get within my allowable envelope, I had to add 29 ounces of ballast in the tail. Has anyone else had this problem?
Robert Godbe (#397), Palo Alto, CA
"I would like to report an accident. I completed taxi tests during the summer and waited until cool weather before attempting flight tests. My plane has the standard 18 HP engine and is heavy at 312 lbs. The CG is O.K., my weigh is 171 lbs and at the time of the accident I had approximately one and three-quarter gallons of fuel. This put me slightly over gross with max RPM of 3,000.
I tried runway hops as recommended by Quickie. I would start off with the stick slightly aft and go to full aft stick at about 50 MPH. I found that the plane would not lift off until approximately 63 MPH. I would quickly cut power and lower the plane back to the runway. I did this about three times. On the fourth try (the temperature was about 65 degrees), the plane rose to 12-15 feet before I had time to cut power. The runway is 4000 feet and I had used up two-thirds at this time, so I decided to fly her around. I released a slight amount of back pressure to try and get some airspeed.
The plane started to sink. I put the back pressure back in to no effect. The plane landed to the left of the runway and hard on the tail. I was in the dirt, so I steered the plane up on the runway, and in doing so, hit a runway light with the center right canard. I slowed the plane to taxi speed by the end of the runway, taxied the plane back to the ramp and inspected for damage. The rudder was pulled off from the hard landing. The canard has a 3" deep cut from the runway light, but there was no other damage.
I would like to hear from readers. I have been told that the 18 HP Quickie will not fly at this altitude (5000'). My work phone number is (303) 455-7523. I would also like to have some Quickie builder in the Denver area look at the plane before I give it another try."
David Bynum, P.O. Box 21193, Denver, CO 80221
"I am currently at the stage where I should begin to build my (Quickie) canard, but would very much like to use the new canard airfoil if and when it is approved for the Quickie. I am afraid, however, we won't see this for quite some time based on QAC's past record for sticking to development schedules and the low priority the Quickie has had since the Q2 and Q-200 have been introduced. Perhaps in the next QUICKTALK issue, you can encourage Quickie builders to let QAC know they are interested in this option (as well as the new Citroen engine) and that there is a market if they put more effort into the Quickie. Right now in order to keep my project moving, it looks like I will have to start building the original canard."
Craig Gallenbach (#540), Aiken, SC
"I find QUICKTALK to be a wealth of information and of great value to me as a novice builder. I would like to respond to a comment made in QUICKTALK Issue #11 by J.P. Stroud, which stated that 'QAC is particularly remiss...in not compiling and distributing...a consolidated list of mandatory inspections and changes.'
J.P. may be interested to know that QAC does have a list of Quickie Plans Changes and Quickie Builder Tip Notices. I recently purchased a previously owned Quickie kit with no work completed. Before starting construction of the kit, I wanted to be sure I had all the QPC's. I wrote to QAC asking if they had such a list and enclosed a SASE for them to respond if there was a charge for the list. Within three weeks I received not only a list of all QPC's from QPC1 through QPC34 on four 11"x17" pages, but also a list of Quickie Builder Tip Notices QBT1 through QBT59. There was no charge and QAC returned my unused SASE."
J.F. Switalski (#137), Martinez, CA
"...If there has been one unsatisfying aspect of our Q2 building experience, it has been the engine. We bought ours in Canada from a would-be builder. We operated it for 20 hours and then shipped it to Revmaster for a new crank, new starter, oil filter, etc. It returned in jig time with $1100 (US) in new parts and no bill for labor. That was much appreciated, but no typical of our experience with Revmaster. In general, letters go unanswered, phone calls are not returned, orders get lost. We waited three months for our oil cooler and about the same to sort out our starter problem. We finally made casts of the gears to prove that the ring gear was the wrong gear altogether. Even that did not get a response. A fortune in phone calls later got an answer. That episode took about six months from start to finish.
The geared starter, by the way, is the only way to go. We have tried both. Our engine hasn't quit yet and we are thankful of that, but dealing with Revmaster has been frustrating experience to put it politely. I get the distinct impression that they are too busy for the number of people working there. If you have trouble with the operation of your engine, try to speak to Eric Shilling. He knows the numbers and has given us valuable help..."
Martin Olson (#2009-Can.), Golden, B.C.
"My Quickie Kit #401 ordered in May 1980 (N401JH) was first 'flown' on October 6th after numerous aborts - insufficient power on the 8000' paved runway at Crestview, Florida. It got off in 1200 feet and 25 minutes later I was at traffic pattern altitude (1200')
Yep, my Quickie weighs out at 291 lbs (used certified and calibrated aircraft scales). I weigh out at 195, so anyone familiar with the Quickie can see the problem. Also, I'm using (up to now) the standard 18 HP engine.
Today, I talked with Onan about the 20 HP heads. Also wrote to Eipper Aircraft to be among the first on the list for the Lotus four-cylinder, 4-cycle engine (50 HP, 52 lbs with electric start). Yes, for my Quickie.
I was an Air Force pilot for 30 years with 8 years instructing...I have to say that the Quickie is no aircraft for the low time pilot. It is more trickier than any other aircraft I've ever flown. It lands like no other taildragger - it has to be flown in with power. Again, I'm operating at gross, which has a bearing on all this. I severely resent the advertised 245 design gross weight. I've verified no Quickie I know of at less than 261 lbs. - and I question that..."
John Hicks (#401), Mary Esther, FL
You can order a PDF or printed copy of QuickTalk #12 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.