Q1_Aircraft: building the Q1

Matt,

My Q1 weighed 299# empty weight with the Onan ready to fly.
I only added 3 more rubber engine mounts to spread out the load on
the firewall. you can see them in the photos section. I had the
engine out of a Teenie 2.

Ryan


--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , matt Hughes <smoothmatson@y...>
wrote:
>
> This is your total weight? not just the weight of the engine,
flywheel, bat.? what mods did you have to do to your q1 to
accomodate this engine. Who did you get your engine from?
>
> Tri-Q1 <rryan@s...> wrote:365 pounds empty weight &amp; hand prop.
>
> 424 pounds with starter, flywheel &amp; battery. This is worth the
weight.
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'smoothmatson'
<smoothmatson@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > You have a vw 1835 in your q1? How much does it weigh? I was
> looking
> > at a 1600cc.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Experimental aircraft Aviation gear Aviation Experimental
>
>

---

> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group 'Q1_Aircraft' on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>

---

>
>
>
>
>
>

---

> Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ryan. 424lbs. that is only 60lbs than the recomended maximum weight.
With pilot and fuel would the canard be strong enough on landings? Is
this the reason why you switched to tri gear?

Matt,

424# empty + [8gal.] 48# fuel + 180# pilot = 652# gross take off
weight.

60 horsepower vs. 22hp = 1100 fpm climb vs. 150/250fpm.

The main gear can handle the weight, I have bounced it, like a diving
board on a bad landing---still no stress fractures at the fuselage or
paint.

Fortunately all Rutan designs are over designed structurally.

I changed to tri-gear because after over 50 hours flying this type
of maingear I wanted something more reliable on landing.
The tri-gear lets me land and takeoff in 650' to 800' with no fear of
a prop strike or crosswind chalenges. I had to give up about 9/12mph
in top speed with the tri-gear.

Ryan


--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Matt' <smoothmatson@y...> wrote:
>
> Ryan. 424lbs. that is only 60lbs than the recomended maximum
weight.
> With pilot and fuel would the canard be strong enough on landings?
Is
> this the reason why you switched to tri gear?
>

Ryan, you have me convinced! thanks for all your info. I think that i am going
to go with a vw.

Tri-Q1 < rryan@... > wrote:Matt,

424# empty + [8gal.] 48# fuel + 180# pilot = 652# gross take off
weight.

60 horsepower vs. 22hp = 1100 fpm climb vs. 150/250fpm.

The main gear can handle the weight, I have bounced it, like a diving
board on a bad landing---still no stress fractures at the fuselage or
paint.

Fortunately all Rutan designs are over designed structurally.

I changed to tri-gear because after over 50 hours flying this type
of maingear I wanted something more reliable on landing.
The tri-gear lets me land and takeoff in 650' to 800' with no fear of
a prop strike or crosswind chalenges. I had to give up about 9/12mph
in top speed with the tri-gear.

Ryan


--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Matt' <smoothmatson@y...> wrote:
>
> Ryan. 424lbs. that is only 60lbs than the recomended maximum
weight.
> With pilot and fuel would the canard be strong enough on landings?
Is
> this the reason why you switched to tri gear?
>






SPONSORED LINKS
Experimental aircraft Aviation gear Aviation Experimental

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group 'Q1_Aircraft' on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

---

Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Matt,

I had the VW engine sitting around. My point is that the engine
weight was not a problem for the Q1 airframe.

The VW engines have proven over the years to be a reliable Aero
engine.

Ryan


--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , matt Hughes <smoothmatson@y...>
wrote:
>
> Ryan, you have me convinced! thanks for all your info. I think
that i am going to go with a vw.
>
> Tri-Q1 <rryan@s...> wrote:Matt,
>
> 424# empty + [8gal.] 48# fuel + 180# pilot = 652# gross take off
> weight.
>
> 60 horsepower vs. 22hp = 1100 fpm climb vs. 150/250fpm.
>
> The main gear can handle the weight, I have bounced it, like a
diving
> board on a bad landing---still no stress fractures at the fuselage
or
> paint.
>
> Fortunately all Rutan designs are over designed structurally.
>
> I changed to tri-gear because after over 50 hours flying this type
> of maingear I wanted something more reliable on landing.
> The tri-gear lets me land and takeoff in 650' to 800' with no fear
of
> a prop strike or crosswind chalenges. I had to give up about
9/12mph
> in top speed with the tri-gear.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Matt' <smoothmatson@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > Ryan. 424lbs. that is only 60lbs than the recomended maximum
> weight.
> > With pilot and fuel would the canard be strong enough on
landings?
> Is
> > this the reason why you switched to tri gear?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Experimental aircraft Aviation gear Aviation Experimental
>
>

---

> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group 'Q1_Aircraft' on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>

---

>
>
>
>
>
>

---

> Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>