Q-talk 20 - LETTERS - Q-TIPS
- Category: Q-Talk Articles
- Published: Wednesday, 28 February 1990 06:11
- Written by Jim Masal
- Hits: 2633
Quickie N5425D has about 55 hours since first flight. I had an engine mount bolt break at about 25 hours but no problems since. I enjoy flying my Quickie very much. Q-TALK has helped make this possible also safer because of all the information shared by other builders. Thank you.
Arden Krueger, Wausau, WI
ED. NOTE: That's a USA in the middle, right? A broken mount bolt somewhere along the line is not uncommon. Mine was the lower one.
I am always amazed as to how fast this method of construction is compared to my first homebuilt (tube and rag). I have all the major parts completed and I plan to have the project on its gear this summer. As I told people at our porch meeting at Oshkosh, I am planning to put a Continental Ground Power unit into the plane. I presently am flying behind a similar GPU in my other homebuilt. I have logged over 400 trouble free hours and am very pleased with the engine's performance. I should do equally well in the Q-200.
Lance Talcott, Harbor Springs, MI
From the Editor: Two of our guys are working diligently to mount 0-235 engines in their Q2's. Kimbull McAndrew (Calgary, Canada) and Quentin Durham (Orinda, CA) have been corresponding on each other's progress and have thoughtfully copied me on their letters. What follow are excerpts:
I have been working on an 0-235 conversion for about a year. I flew with the Revmaster for 165 hrs and then the crankcase broke.
I have built a hand laid LS canard with a span of 212 inches and am leaving the main wingspan at 200 inches. The canard was built with carbon fiber spar caps using similar methods as the Dragonfly. I used Martin Hollman's book to determine the required number of layers and designed to +8g's and -4g's. I then load tested to about +4.5g's successfully. The canard will have Dragonfly Mk II gear legs with a 7-foot stance (maintaining the taildragger configuration).
I have built a new magneto box (I did not have to modify the original header tank to install it) and am using the original Q2 engine mounts (2 inches long). These modifications should keep my CG within limits and give me a gross weight of 1150 lbs.
Soon I'll build the cowl to accommodate a crossover exhaust system from a female mold. I could probably build you a cowl if your engine mount design is similar to mine.
Presently I'm just completing an 8 gallon fuel tank in my baggage compartment which will have an escape hatch as well (for those uncomfortable roof landings).
You're miles ahead of me, but perhaps not too far off as most of my systems are done (electrical, fuel, brakes, pitot static, etc.).
My canard is pretty much as the plans suggest: carbon tube which at the moment I am trying to Bondo/sand/cuss into some reasonable facsimile of desired airfoil shape. I envy you your crossover exhaust. I debated and wrote letters and finally decided to simply go down and out with 4 separate pipes. Not as efficient as yours, but maybe lighter, with fewer feet of hot plumbing under the cowl, and (most importantly) more in keeping with my welding expertise.
I debated and agonized for too long about what to do with the starter. I figure it costs about 50 lbs with ring, starter, relays, heavy cables, large battery, etc., but decided to include it anyhow. It would be distinctly uncool to have the mill quit on the runway requiring some 747 to wave off while I push the dead sucker off the runway to prop start it. No class.
I built a large removable pan to allow for the recessed mags, but am afraid that my CG will still be way off. The battery will be on the forward side of the tailcone's first former to avoid access doors further back, but I'll have to ballast the tail, but that might actually be lighter than longer, larger cables, access doors and fuselage stiffners. Who knows.
Wish I'd made the header larger than 4.5 gallons, but built it when the engine was undecided. A local Q200 driver strapped a plastic tank in the passenger seat for the Oshkosh trip last summer, but I think your baggage compartment aux tank is better. I have a couple of Facet fuel pumps, one to keep the header full and the other to provide positive pressure for the carb and J. C. Whitney fuel computer. A check valve should allow gravity flow if/when the electrics pack it up.
If I were doing it again, I'd mount the 0-235 on a flat firewall. Simply stick it out far enough for the mags to clear, and then ballast the tail for CG. Much simpler and questionably heavier. I talked to Jim Griswold, Questair Venture designer and his thoughts were that spreading weight out toward the wingtips could cause problems by increasing the yaw polar moment of inertia. But spreading weight out fore and aft (as long as the CG's proper) won't cause any significant problems. Again, who knows.
I'm trying a pair of speed brakes, located about fuselage midline, 2 ft aft of the fuselage split line. These are 7" top to bottom, ride in Teflon grooves and extend out 8" max, driven electrically through a shaft with half right hand threads and half left. Aeronautical equivalent of dragging one's tennies, increasing flat plate area about 60%. They're called "fly swatters". Fly swatters, sparrow strainers, what next?
Any idea what sort of prop you'll be using?
ED. NOTE: These guys will be most interesting to watch. Kimbull is making his somewhat conservative changes to a tested 165-hour airframe which gives him a good baseline for performance changes. Quent is modifying an entirely untested airframe. Common wisdom has been to test as per plans before you go monkeying around with mods. These guys will give us a good test of this wisdom's accuracy. Thanks guys!
(Charlie Belshe showed up last OSH with a surprise: An 0-200 mounted on an airframe with the old GU canard. The plane was beautiful and he was happy with performance. Here's a follow-up. - ED.)
Pitch stability in my Q2 was inadequate from the beginning, especially at higher airspeeds. Greater airspeed required more nose up trim - supplied by the plans built spring system. Level flight at cruise speed was a very fragile balance of high elevator force being offset by high spring trim force. Pitch stability was divergent if the balance was disrupted by the slightest change in attitude, airspeed or CG.
I always suspected that the Q200 sparrow strainers would work well on the GU canard to trim the elevator aerodynamically, supplying proportionately more trim force at higher airspeed. This proved to be true; pitch stability was dramatically improved after installing the trim tabs.
Some trial and error was required to achieve the right configuration for my plane. I finally settled on two 7" sections of the Q200 sparrow strainer airfoil mounted in the slipstream below the elevator trailing edge, located 14" outboard from the inboard ends.
My installation has provided the positive stability you expect in any plane - pulse the stick forward or back and trimmed airspeed is regained after a few cycles. What a pleasure!
Charlie Belshe, Providence, RI
I have been giving some thought to two areas on the airplane that could use improvement: 1) Rudder attachment and 2) Elevator torque tube. The first is mainly a convenience to be able to easily remove the rudder for painting etc. I will comment further on this when my schedule eases. But since 2) is a safety of flight item, I will comment now.
Andy Marshall mentions in his book "Composite Basics", that adhesive bonds to aluminum, which are improperly prepared, essentially degrade to zero strength over a period of years with exposure to humidity. Proper preparation means PAA, Phosphoric Acid Anodizing. Our airplanes rely on an adhesive bond between the unprepared aluminum torque tube and foam in the elevators. To the extent of my understanding, I believe this factor may have been responsible for your accident, Jim, and Swanningson's.
The fixes that have been proposed thus far in the newsletter, such as dowels through the skin into the torque tube are an improvement. I think a potentially better approach, particularly for new construction, would be to pass the torsional loads from the skin to the torque tube directly through an element with a specified shear strength such as a pop rivet. My sketch shows how pop rivets might be used in an elevator to provide a structure similar to the ailerons.
The foam is dimpled to allow the rivets to clamp the skin directly to the torque tube. The rivets can serve as the primary load path.
Jinx Hawks/Brock McCaman and Dave Barth were kind enough to send their Rotax notes so I am more anxious than ever to proceed with the project. I managed to get to Oshkosh '89 where I was awed and humbled by Tom Solan's airplane; I would be happy if mine turned out half as well.
Maury Cosman, Woburn, MA
Since I have the turbo Revmaster on my Q2, I have been scratching around trying to come up with a new prop now that Maloof's have been grounded. In the process I was referred to Molt Taylor to Chad Wille, since my exploratory conversations with MT-Propellers of West Germany indicated some problems.
In my talk with Chad, he said "...but have you heard of the wing problem with the Q2's?" He told me that there have been a couple of catastrophic wing failures 3/4 of the way out from the root during normal cruise. He said that Mel Ellis, who finished the first kit-built Q2 back in '81 - "a beautiful airplane" - has looked into the problem thoroughly and has decided to park his on the ramp for good. Gene Sheehan was contacted and denied that there was design flaw in the airplane, contending that these cases were instances of incorrect construction.
I've been unable to contact Mel Ellis to talk to him about his research. Chad didn't have his number, and my efforts to get it through Mark Nelson have been unsuccessful. I was wondering if you've gotten any information on these cases and know about Mel's reservations. The only case I'm familiar with was the one with Bob McFarland down in Florida.
Until I can sort out the constant-speed prop problem, I'm planning on going with a fixed-pitch for a while. I'll keep you posted.
John Cheek, Nashville, TN
ED. NOTE: In my own personal experience I have heard and read statements of Sheehan's that leads me to the opinion that his "truth" is very different from mine. However, I'm with him on this story. Let's kill this snake like a journalist might.
Questions: 1) What are Chad's credentials as an accurate story passer? Is he the kind who likes to propagate a good, juicy story? How well do you know him? 3/4 of the way out from the wing root is an odd place to break. 2) Other than the fact that he built a Q2 (like a couple hundred others), what are Ellis' credentials as an investigator? And how thoroughly did he do it? 3) How is it that Ellis got this information while not one of 400 fairly active QBAers ever reported it? Is somebody besides Ellis holding back critical information that could save our lives? Considerate, eh? 4) Is this story about Ellis even true?
Facts: 1) Two documented in-flight wing breaks were: a leaking aux tank built behind the seatback OVER the main wing and a poor repair of previous damage by Bob McFarland. Both broke closer to the root. 2) Several GU canard breaks have happened on the ground at the end of the stiffner about halfway out. But, we are dealing with 3 different canards: the GU, the LS spar and the "special" that Sheehan flies with. 3) There are a couple hundred Q2 types flying, most by QBAers. Some have several hundred hours of flight time. Catastrophic wing failures have not yet been reported. You have better odds of a head-on collision in your auto this week.
Assuming you don't have a liar for an editor, a big benefit of an independent builder newsletters is the unbiased ability to receive and disseminate safety related matters. That's why I'm constantly harping on everyone to keep in touch regularly. Thank you, John, for reporting this information and for attempting to track down the source, Ellis. Now can anyone help John and us by digging into this story further? I don't want to totally dismiss this story just in case there might be a grain of truth somewhere.
Some numbers on my Q-200 after 500 hours: Top speed is 197 MPH and cruise at 8000' is 183 MPH at 65% power. I normally get 34 MPG on my trips. Empty weight is 640 lbs but will soon be higher due to adding some IFR stuff. I'm thinking of entering the Sun 60 race at Lakeland (He didn't. The only Q to defend our honor was J. P. Stroud's Onan Quickie!).
Mike Dwyer, Clearwater, FL
I really think that reading all the different ideas from your contributors has really helped me a lot.
I have used the tailwheel made by Aviation Products, Inc. of California and the plane looks nice sitting there at 7.5 degrees angle of attack. I also used a 4130 tailspring, which is removable. This is accomplished through an aluminum tube floxed and glassed into the tail. My spring had to exit the tail at a steeper angle than most because I stuck with larger 500x5 tires and allowed adequate clearance at the top of the wheel pant. Other than using Rosenhan wheels and adding one extra UNI to both sides of the canard, I am following the plans closely. I have been very careful with angles and measurements.
The only change I am contemplating is to enlarge the rudder area and allow mass balancing of the surface also. There have been some reports in this area but I'd like to hear more.
ED. NOTE: This increased rudder area business is a puzzlement. A few people have apparently tried it but I don't hear any reports praising it to the high heavens. Bill Elliott's bird, now in England, was found to have four times the original rudder area yet Don Johnson who is testing it now is not ecstatic about it. He flies a standard Q2 just fine. Many pretty and high time Q2/200's are doing fine with no extra rudder. Furthermore, rudder wasn't put on the plane JUST for momentary ground control but for FLIGHT control. If you change the rudder area to provide a crutch for you on the ground, do you know what effect it will have on flight characteristics? Maybe now you will be able to get into a flat spin or some other shenanigan that you won't be expecting. Unless of course you are going to re-do the test program to discover the result in the air.
Thanks for sending in a builders idea for me, the turkey feathers. I am still not convinced that they are the best way to go. I haven't flown in rain. I have had a significantly bugged up canard and they seemed to work well in that condition. I also took off one morning with dew on the canard, successfully. It seemed like it took a brief period of time in ground effect to clean off but then flew normal. I have noticed a significant difference in how it flies with them on. First, the canard has more lift. Therefore with the same aileron setting the elevator has too much authority during the flare. So I turned in one turn of aileron deflection up but now the elevators are at about 0 degrees during cruise.
One other observation with the generators is that it takes longer after lift off to reach climb speed. One of these years even I will bite the bullet and go for the bigger engine. But what would be the challenge with all that extra power and speed? Life would be boring!!
The other difference that may just be a perception is that my best climb speed is 80 mph. If I lift off at 60 and only accelerate to 70 for climb like I used to, climb is too slow. But then I think it is time to open up the engine too because max static rpm with my three various pitch props has been decreasing over the years. The one thing I do know is that my tach (ala Will Hubin) is accurate.
Ahhh, the relaxed attitude of our military reservists! The Air Force had a C-5A in La Crosse, WI one weekend when Charlie Lipke had his Quickie out. The personnel were absolutely fascinated with the size difference and were willing to "play" a bit with Charlie. Besides putting it in the C-5's mouth they also made other comparisons:
The C-5A Versus Quickie Fact Sheet
|High Speed Cruise
|Takeoff over 50 ft obstacle
|Landing over 50 ft obstacle
|Number of landing gear wheels
|Long range cruise
|Range with max payload
6200 Sq Ft
44 Sq Ft
|Weight of paint on plane
|Number of engines
|Power of each engine
38,000 Lb thrust
|Tires weight - total
|Wing weight (with canard)
SPRINGFIELD '90 FLOCKING IS ON !!!
Langley, Whetsten and the rest of the Springfield, Missouri gang are excited and ready to host you again. Wait 'til you guys see Whetsten's custom fiberglass baffling on his Revmaster! And...it WORKS...all the way to Sun 'N Fun and back. It'll get your imagination working overtime!
If anyone wants to know, I'll be booked into the Red Roof Inn, 417-831-2100. Here's a tentative schedule:
|Arrivals in the PM.
Dutch treat dinner as a group. Assemble at the Red Roof, 7 p.m. Rousing bull session in Masal's room after dinner like last year. Maybe we can get a VCR and show interesting Q tapes.
|Breakfast at Shoney's (N. Glenstone) Dutch treat, everyone welcome.
|Arrive at N.E. corner of the airport and gawk/take rides.
|QBA "Back Porch" type meeting
|Whetsten will discuss engine cooling and his solution.
|Lunch, courtesy of our hosts
|Guest speaker followed by questions and answers on construction and operations of the aircraft.
|Group dinner, Dutch treat at a location to be announced. Hangar flying after.
|Breakfast (To be announced)
|At the field. Final QBA wrap-up look around, cleanup, departures.
Bring any spare parts, plans, etc. that you want to sell or trade. Bring pictures, videos or show and tell items. Again, the location is at the N.E. corner of the Springfield, MO Regional Airport. Keep these numbers handy and tell them you are coming or have arrived:
Jim and Delores Langley, 417-732-1143
Ron and Patti Whetsten, 417-887-5960
My angle of incidence is 1/2 degree negative. Scott says that is tolerable. Empty weight is 659 lbs, the tailwheel pivots perpendicular to the ground and the tire is the soft rubber "Tail-HB-REP-6" from AC Spruce. I like Marv Getten's advice about landing on first flight: 1000 RPM and hold it just above the runway and let it get tired... 40 lbs behind the seat and some up reflexor.
Anyone with advice about mounting the antenna for a King 8002 Loran?
Phil Kelly, Miami, FL
My name will not be familiar to you or the other members, but my Dad's name will: Ennis Barlow. There were four partners that built N14QP starting in Aug. '81. Each partner did something to the plane. One was the test pilot and instructor, one was the flier and crasher and my Dad was the builder, rebuilder and mechanic. Then there was me. In the beginning, I was between jobs, so I worked with the others 10-12 hours per day until I started a new job. Our Q flew in May '82. In July '86 the plane had its second major accident. It was decided to convert to the Tri-Q.
The conversion was completed in Feb. '87. The test pilot began his work again and felt very good about how it handled on the ground, but with March here, it was Sun 'N Fun time so we all headed south. We cut our trip short when on March 21 we heard that the Tri-Q had crashed. We came back home to find the plane piled in the middle of the hangar floor. The pilot survived with a broken back, leg and a few cuts. He had misjudged his final approach and clipped the tops of the row of trees at the end of the runway and then just plowed up the ground.
For some strange love I have for this airplane, I have bought another kit to build. This time I'm on my own, with my dad's guidance, of course, and I'm building a Tri-Q from the start. Plans are for a Lancair type canopy mount and full dual controls except brakes.
Richard Barlow, Stockbridge, GA
ED. NOTE: Welcome, Richard. We hope to hear good things from you just like we did from your Dad.
I've installed the pitch trim control and am routing the rudder cables using an extension to the pedals out the left side that allows me to run both cables down the left side console. I'm also using pulleys instead of the Nylaflow tubing "guides" the plans suggest. They're more difficult to install but worth the effort in terms of control feel, reliability and repairability.
In order to make it easier to apply and sand filler on the bottom of the main wing, I detached the tail section and turned the entire forward part of the fuselage up on the firewall. There are two other reasons for doing this. The first is that you can stand up straight while doing most of the cockpit work in between sanding and filling. The second is a result of the first. Previously, I spent quite a bit of time in the cockpit on my knees installing various parts and wound up leaving local delamination of the fiberglass from the foam in the fuel tank/seat. If you don't have to crawl around the cockpit in ways you were not intended to, you can minimize the potential for damage to it. The drawback is that it's tough to get cockpit time unless you like hanging from your seatbelts!
It won't be long before I will be able to do the 11 hours of testing as outlined in Q-TALK #18 by Jim Masal. After I check out my Tri Q-200 as outlined, I should be able to get some good pilot to take me for a flight as I am 75 years old and I may not pass my next medical.
Thanks, Jim, for publishing that taxi test program so builders will have a checklist to check out their Q's.
Jack Dempsey, Rayne, LA
As to an update on SN 229: First, and incredibly important, I have hooked up with a couple of get-it-done types who push, pull, shove and kick me into actually working on this far too old project. Sam Hoskins has been a real Godsend, although last spring I wasn't so sure. Sam inspected my project and first suggested a fire sale, then suggested that I at least build a new main wing as a huge pile of little glitches made use of the original (now 8 year old) wing possible, but likely a giant headache, a probable anchor (or at least weighing that much), and a lot of sleepless nights worrying about the whole being less than the sum of its errors.
After talking me into building the new wing, Sam "ramrodded" me through several months of inertia and got the wing done. Sam always seemed to "Tom Sawyer" some of his A&P student buddies into giving me a lot of help too. Everything from template cutting (Sam brought a specialist with a very precise eye) to hotwiring to laying up the skins to engaging his lady friend to cheerlead me to get it done. For all that I am in Sam's debt.
Then my luck doubled. I met Dave Eckstrom, a guy with more energy that I ever have dreamt of having AND two years experience as a finisher in a fiberglass fabrication plant - he loves to fill and sand (as a psychologist I may have to have him eventually committed on that point, but I'll wait 'til I'm flying). Dave may well join the ranks of Q-builders in short order.
Mark Pearson, Carbondale, IL
After over 40 hours of flying our Q2, we fully enjoy it except on landing rolls where it is hard to keep a straight line. We expect to enlarge the rudder 18% and install compression springs between the rudder and the tailwheel like most other tailwheel aircraft to see if it helps. We also like Sam Hoskins' lateral trim system (Q-TALK #12), but we don't see how the turnbuckle can be locked properly.
An area of concern is the engine. We have adjusted the valves 7 times so far on the 64 HP heads. We have decided to replace the valve seats. Revmaster offers to do it for $20 per seat. Other than that everything is fine. We cruise at 155 MPH at 3000 RPM, all indicators in the green and climb at 1200 FPM at 2800 RPM and 850 lbs. Our prop is a Great American 56x46.
M. Moreau, R. Dimond, J. Parnigoni, CANADA
ED. NOTE: Somebody confirm what I heard at Sun 'N Fun that Great American is out of business (or at least is pared down to one guy keeping things together).
I put Whelen's popular position/strobe combination lights on the ends of my Q2's wings. I was concerned about how I would get the large, shielded wire to the strobes. This was done by "drilling" out the foam with 5/8" OD copper tubing that was filed sharp on the end. Flexible PCV tubing was then slid from each wing tip to the center. With some planning and luck the ends of both PCV tubes met at the center of the wing. On the underside of the wings where the tubes ended, a hole large enough to accommodate the wires was drilled.
For a cockpit light, I used one purchased from a Sears RV catalog (Europa-Con model 928 surface mount) and glued a red tail light lens onto one light. This one light adequately illuminates the entire instrument panel.
Night landings have been much easier than I anticipated. Adding lights has allowed me to fly more, especially in the winter months when the days are shorter.
John Schnackel, Fort Dodge, IA
From Paul Paulikas, Downers Grove, IL
Ron Cothern's Quickie with the Hirth F-23 is still grounded due to ignition problems. Two solutions are sort of in hand, but neither has been applied due to winter. Closest solution is an automotive CDI system using the Hirth's points for timing. Ron found a guy in SC using this on a Hirth. This system produces a nice juicy spark.
The other solution is a new; almost complete Hirth ignition system sent to me by Hirth after I sent a letter of complaint to them (in my best German, which isn't very good). This system arrived gratis (old parts return requested) just as the CDI was showing promise. More when it's flying.
I found some information from a company that markets a thread repair kit. It might be helpful to those builders using the Onan engines with the head stud problems. The system is advertised to meet Military and Aviation Standards and is available from ENCO, 5000 West Bloomingdale Ave., Chicago, IL 60639-9981.
Regarding the letter from Bernie Kerr in Q-TALK #12, I used an angle indicator to check the incidence of the wing and canard. I left my level blocks on the wing and canard; the fuselage was raised until WL 15 was level and the angle of the wing and canard checked - both read within .25 of a degree. I then lowered the fuselage until the angle indicator read 7.5 degrees (with weight on the firewall to simulate my Revmaster) and installed the tailwheel, thus giving me the proper ground angle of attack.
I am using a solid steel tailspring from a Sonerai - the tail spring is inserted into a piece of steel tubing and floxed into the tail of the plane. AN4 bolts hold the tailspring into the steel tube.
Richard L. Kautz, Mt. Vernon, NY
As we all know, Saf-T-Poxy is anything but safe. Some of us may have a better tolerance to its toxicity than others. However, I believe with continued exposure one can build up a gradual toxic reaction to these chemicals, so we've all been told to use protection to prevent skin contact. Of course this is not always the best of both worlds when one is doing hand layups. We've been told that the black butyl gloves are best for epoxy protection, but they make precision glass layups almost impossible. We've found that surgical examination gloves purchased from a local medical supply house offer adequate protection and seem impermeable to the epoxy. After all, they are designed to protect a doctor from viruses (like AIDS) which are some of the smallest critters around, so they should work for us. We wear them and have not had epoxy reactions although we have had a slight rash from the talcum and our own sweat occasionally. That usually goes away after we take the gloves off. They come in a box of 50 for about $20 and I use a new pair each time I glass. As far as "feel", doctors do surgery in these gloves so for that and epoxy protection, its a small price to pay.
Some time in the future I will write and tell the story of a case of rectal/cranial inversions in which I lost a Q2 on the way to Oshkosh '85 due to a bag dropping back into the tail. Perhaps someone may benefit from my experience. (You can BET on it, ED.)
Gordon Pratt, San Lorenzo, CA
ED. NOTE: I like those gloves a lot; Gordon, and have always used them. They are not difficult to get. However, a small point: a simple molecule is much smaller than a virus and can go where it can't. You oughta see how fast a volatile solvent like MEK can penetrate those gloves. And I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the "reactions" we're seeing are not to the epoxy but to the solvents. In any case, everyone ought to try these gloves ESPECIALLY if they are otherwise tempted to bare hands!
and to further this subject, from Jerry Marstall:
Take a 1 lb Planter's Peanut can or coffee can and cut a small slit in the plastic lid. Fill can 3/4 full of acetone. Push the handle of the brush through the slit lid from the bottom. Replace the lid and adjust brush so it is off the bottom but still immersed in the acetone. The lid keeps the acetone from evaporating. Works great. (You can also use lacquer thinner which you can get cheaper, ED.)
DON'T BRUSH OFF YOUR BRUSH
OR, DON'T BRUSH YOUR BRUSH OFF
Have you ever wondered why good ideas come almost too late to do any good at all? When Ves and I were building our Quickie the one thing that bothered me big time, was throwing away a perfectly good brush. If it was an entire wing or a little widget, once the brush touched the epoxy it was doomed. Being your standard cheapskate I decided to devise a technique to allow reuse of the brushes. We suspended them in a large, sealed jar with a little acetone at the bottom. Sure enough this rendered them soft and pliable between usages. However, the acetone fumes dissolved the glue that rendered the component parts into a brush. We spent more time picking hairs out of the lay-up than we did doing the actual glassing. (I guess that's why they call them throwaway brushes). We had good brushes and bad brushes. The good brushes had lost their loose hairs and were safe to use. Some of them looked like Hitler's moustache.
Now that we are into a major rebuild we finally rediscovered the secret. SOAP. When you are finished with a brush, wipe it as clean as you can with a paper towel then work dishwashing detergent into the brush being careful NOT to attack the upper 1/4" of the brush. The resulting mung would disgust a maggot and would make a sick puppy proud. Fear not, it's water-soluble. Rinse with really hot water and repeat the procedure at least three times and set the brush aside to dry. The dried brush will initially appear to be a bit crisp but a pass or so across the hand will restore a soft texture. The epoxy will harden in the last 1/4-inch or so and retain the hairs. The more you use it the better it gets. We call it the: "Accelerated Intermolecular Disintegration System". (AIDS)
From Jerry Marstall, Lincoln, MA
Long time no write, like maybe 1983. It seems about that time I met the lady who is now my wife and the Q2 went into hibernation. After some extensive indoctrination she now has her pilot's license and wants the Q2 in the air. Sooooo...here we go again, this time to the finish.
I thought I'd bend your ear with the following tip:
Sometimes getting that long thin strip of BID into a rudder, elevator or aileron slot can test even the Pope's rhetoric. This will make it quite easy.
1. To hold the vertical stabilizer on edge I simply cut slots in a cardboard box and put sandbags in the bottom to stabilize it.
2. Cut 2 pieces of 2" wide Peel-Ply to the length of the slot. Fold the Peel-Ply in half lengthwise and crease them. When they unfold they make great right angle bends. Fold them such that one leg of the bend is the depth of the slot - extending only to the bottom of the slot. This also works on trailing edges of elevators, ailerons and rudder.
3. Cut BID as directed in the plans. Run half-inch wide masking tape lengthwise down the center to hold the shape of the BID. (Put tape on BEFORE cutting the cloth. It's best to use 2 pieces of tape, each half the length, as described in previous newsletters).
4. Spread slurry in the bottom of the slot. On a bench, wet out the leg of Peel-Ply that goes into the slot. Place in slot as shown and secure with tacks on the top surface.
5. Layup the layers of BID on a piece of plastic. It's best to wet the strip covered by the masking tape from the back. Flip it over and wet the rest from the top side. Leave the masking tape on the top layup to hold the shape during positioning.
6. Pick up the wetted layup and hold lengthwise above the slot. Lay it over the slot and gently push the BID into the slot by pressing on the masking tape.
7. Once pressed into the slot, gently remove the masking tape and stipple to bottom and sides of the slot.
Now that I am back at it, I hope to be making more contributions. While I wasn't working on the bird all those years, I read every issue of Q-TALK the minute it arrived. Our flying machines are better products because of your efforts and your encouragement for contributions.
Time to throw in the towel. I completed my Q2 four years ago but lacked the pilot proficiency to fly it. Now 4 years, 2 babies and 1 house later I'm even further away from the pilot skills to fly my Q2. Guess I'm just a builder. Please print my FOR SALE classified.
Your efforts with Q-TALK have been greatly appreciated. Sorry I was not aware of Q-TALK during the majority of my construction days ('81-'83).
Rod Graham, Issaquah, WA
I just heard about QBA in the September '89 issue of Sport Aviation. In 1984 my partner and I purchased a Q2/Q200 kit from QAC. We spent several hundred hours working on it the first year and are now ready to resume the project. We had not purchased the engine installation parts and plans by the time QAC went out of business. Can we get these? I understand there has been a lot of ground looping. Are there mods to correct this? Is there a mod kit to convert to Tri-gear?
Cheryl Sanchez, Needham Heights, MA
ED. NOTE: Read on, Cheryl! Many QBAers would suggest you get some back issues to catch up to date on details related to the questions you have. Welcome aboard! I'd say you got here just in time.
My ship, Tri-Q200, N2XQ has over 350 hours of flying time, and guys I'm having fun. Some of you know me and the problems I had with the taildragger and Revmaster. I built my ship originally as a taildragger and Revmaster engine. Weight was 631 lbs with a full panel and Loran-C.
After over 20 hrs and 2 ground loops I knew this baby was not for me. I had 7 hours in a Decathlon and about 5 in a Pitts. Devastated at this point of 5 years of work, I called Scotty Swing to ask about the Tri-gear. I knew Scotty from QAC days and he and his dad are a real class act. They set the standard on how to give builder support. Believe me, they are the best. The conversion was bought and actual building time was only 30 days if you could work on it every day for a couple hours (You terrified taildraggers, take note).
After only 30 minutes of taxiing with the Tri-gear I knew ground handling problems were gone. It was a dream and the landing was the best I ever did, smooth and solid on the ground. I have landed in a direct 90 degree crosswind at 25 mph with no problems.
I now had to deal with the GRIM REAPER Revmaster engine. The first 40 hours were trouble free, but after that it was all down hill. Anyone wanting to know the full story, write me or ask Jim Masal for a copy of the tape I sent him on that engine.
Conversion to the 0-200 took about 30 days of actual time. This was the way the plane should have been done in the first place. The Revmaster was a real dog above 7000' but the 0-200 was a real dream.
I have a Great American propeller. The first was a 62x64 but I found it had just a little too much bite. I could only get 2650 rpm (occasionally 2750) on it and was doing 200 mph. At higher altitude the climb suffered so I went to a 62x62. This was a good combo for climb and 2850 rpm. I also tried the DeMuth prop. It got me off the ground quicker, but the climb was a little slower. It would only wind up to 2650 and 174 mph. The GAP cost me $475; the DeMuth was $200. They are both good props and both perform well.
The weight difference in the 0-200 conversion was only 38 lbs!! and you have 3 times the engine and no problems. I burn 5.5-6 gph at 2650 and 4.5 at 2350.
For you people who were thinking about the HAPI Magnum engine at 80 hp, forget it. They are having overheating problems and the cost is something like $5,000-$7,000.
I'm flying the bird a lot and enjoy the change. I left the anhedral in the wings when I converted it. It looks like you would touch the ground on a bad landing, but you won't.
This plane performs the way it was advertised and you people who are not flying or are too scared are missing a real good flying plane. One last note: my left hand was paralyzed in a Viet Nam plane crash and I have no problems flying my bird. So, to all you frustrated builders and fliers, ARE YOU GOING TO LET A ONE-ARMED MAN SHOW YOU UP?
Lanny Padios, Santa Monica, CA
ED. NOTE: Anybody actually using a HAPI Magnum got any further details about Lenny's comment about overheating? No doubt about it, the Swings give first class builder support on their Tri-Q mod.
My Mosler Quickie is doing well. The return flight from Oshkosh went as planned. Since then, I've only been able to put about 20 hours flight time on it due to starting a new job. Total time now is 90.1 hrs airframe, 130.4 engine.
Tom Solan, Marietta, GA
It's with fear and trembling I read these comments about aileron steering to control a Q-2 during a take off and landing roll!!! This goes against most of the proven principles of controlling an airplane on the ground roll and the Q-2 IS an airplane. Also, comment about the tail wheel not providing steering control above 30 MPH supports the undeniable fact that main wing incident is WRONG. Coupled with all that, if there is a reflexor and the tail wheel isn't "stuck" down then there may be other problems;
-- reflexing in the wrong direction
-- reflexor not providing enough travel
-- reflexor not controlled with a vernier for fine adjustments (I say "fine" because of the power the reflexed ailerons apply to effect lift on the main wing).
Since I am the one who is adamant about toe out on the Q-2 wheels, I again recommend incorporating at least 1-2 degrees toe out on the axles. In my case this turned the steering control of MY Q-2 from that of a model-T Ford to that of a Cadillac.
It's my opinion (private pilot, Q-2 owner with 180 hours in type) that the only reason to deflect ailerons during a takeoff or landing roll is in a crosswind condition, AND that has to be coordinated with some opposite rudder input, even with the tail wheel on the ground!! If your Q-2 has to be ground controlled with other than normal proven principles of ground control then an evaluation of wing incidence, reflexor installation, axle alignment and tail wheel pivot bolt angle is in order.
Can someone from QBA furnish me with information pertaining to any changes (if any) in the all up gross weight specification for the Q2? I heard it had been increased from 1000 to 1100 lbs. Have there been any reports on the Q2 flight characteristics at the aft CG shown in the original user's manual or any changes to the original CG operating envelope?
My problem is that information from a W&B exercise indicates the CG is at the aft limit with a combined passenger/pilot weight of 350 lbs.
The owner's manual does not provide any hard numbers for power on or off glide ratios for the original Q2. Finally, during an airworthiness inspection by Transport Canada, a query was raised regarding the high temperature durability of the semi-clear tubing used for crankcase ventilation, which was provided with the original kit. Any information on the above questions would be greatly appreciated.
Greg Merrill, Columbus, OH
ED. NOTE: These questions could be put to Gene Sheehan, Scott Swing, Custom Composites or perhaps Sherman Hanke in SC.
Tri-Q #2353 has been progressing painfully slow although it did come through its first "test hop" during our earthquake of Oct. 17th.
I made a recent discovery concerning the placement of the PVC pipe inside the main wing for nav lights. I installed my pipe in front of the shear web about 1 inch. The more I think about it, it's a bad idea. I sent a letter to Scott Swing who thought it was OK as long as the foam is intact all around the pipe. I'm thinking the best thing to do is re-make the main wing to be sure. It would always be in the back of my mind worrying about when the wing might let go. Besides I can do a better job the second time around.
Some good news!!! Barry Weber (Q-200) was kind enough to give me a 30-minute flight. No rudder pedals on my side but I did get some stick time and it was great. The ride was capped off with a chandelle and an aileron roll. He wants to sell the plane as he finds it cramped on long cross-countries. He has a partially completed Long-EZ lined up.
Dennis Colomb, Suison City, CA
I have put in over 1300 hrs of building on N39LK and I am on the downhill side of building. The plane is painted and I have started to install the systems for the last time. I am having a little trouble getting all the items between the stick and the firewall in the center of the aircraft to fit in and not interfere with something.
I finally got around to putting on the tailwheel and found the ground angle of attack would be wrong. I had to cut a wedge out of the tail section at the split line to lower the tail. It wasn't much fun and the contour didn't match, but when I was through foaming, glassing and filling it was hard to tell I made the cut. Thank goodness for foam, fiberglass and micro.
My canard seems to be mounted about +0.7 degrees and the main wing at +0.5 degrees. I get the right angle of attack so I will see how it flies before changing anything.
I have added an 8 gallon tank on the passenger side in the lower baggage area as "live" ballast.
The sanding and filling prior to painting IS a real chore. I finally said enough! I have a big joggle/bulge in the canard where the carbon spar goes through and some ripples you can see. I flew with Ralph Hess, N32417K in Gainesville, FL who didn't bother to smooth out the bump and the plane flew fine - just looked funny.
There projects seem to take longer than you expect even when you expect them to take a long time!
Larry Koutz, Valdosta, GA
ED. NOTE: Glad you were at SNF even if the plane wasn't, Larry. Thanks for bringing up this business with the spar joggle. I have had several questions on this mismatch so it seems to be a fairly common problem and from your account, nothing to worry about flight wise. Filling this mismatch disturbs some guys. The simple solution is to mix up some mud (micro), slather it on with a wide trowel, cure it, sand to contour and go on your way. It won't add appreciable weight. Will it crack out? I doubt it; at least I haven't heard a report on this as a problem. You could foam it and glass it, but it's not that deep a joggle, is it? Anybody have more to add on this?
My Q2 has been sitting at the airport ready for flight-testing since July, but is waiting for paperwork! I am one of the 50+ builders who are caught by the (unethical) actions of our Minister of Transport. He was asked a question during the House of Commons (congress) question period (15 minute free for all more aptly called "embarrass the Minister for my 5 second TV clip tonight). The question was to the effect of "why does your department contract out aircraft inspection, thereby endangering the life of the public and causing accidents like the recent one in Northern Ontario?". The Minister (No respect intended) said that they would never do something silly like that. Well, when he got back to the office, he found out about the DABI program (Designated Amateur Builder Inspector). These were qualified knowledgeable people who had worked with and were trained by Transport Canada to do all the inspections of homebuilts for the RAAC. The program saved over $500K/yr of tax dollars and did a better job. Everybody was a happy camper except the Minister.
The Minister (again NO respect intended) cancelled the DABI program to save face, and avoid the POTENTIAL embarrassment of modifying his flippant answer in the house. The TC inspectors are not manned or funded to pick up the slack, so NO INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE IN CANADA SINCE JUNE!!!! This ministerial decree is highly unpopular within the department. The bureaucracy has imposed a "work to existing budget" rule, and won't do any inspections even if they are conveniently fit in! I think they are concerned about a political backlash if they go against the Minister's decision.
Inspection and licensing responsibilities are non-discretionary duties to the public. Wouldn't you be pissed off if they suddenly decided not to issue any new car registration permits for this kind of reason?
Where's Barry Goldwater when you need him?
You can order a PDF or printed copy of Q-talk #20 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.