Sure am thinking about it. Trying to get more info on the Vortex generators vs
switching canards. The other issue is the spar - I believe that the original
LS1 spars (at least for the Q2's) were pretty much all built with a carbon fiber
spar - or at least it was not a home built spar... (Doing some digging yet
through the old Quickie newsletters...)
You've been around the block here Ryan - if you have any thoughts I'd be open to
hearing them...
Thanks!
Jonathan
Original Message
From: Ryan
To:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: [Q1_Aircraft] Re: C.G.
Jonathan are you going to build an LS-1 canard?
Ryan
--- In
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, 'Jonathan Kuehne'
<jpkuehne@...> wrote:
>
> Woohee!!
>
> List sure has been quiet lately - I hope that means that everyone
is too busy building and/or flying...
>
> Well, I'm still playing with engine ideas. Did you all see the
May issue of Sport Pilot? Skeet Wyman (out of Apple Valley - up
near Victorville, CA) got published with his McCulloch-powered
Hummelbird. This is ONE of the ideas that I've been toying with. I
KNOW it's a two-stroke, and for many that IMMEDIATELY means no-no -
but it sure is different!!! And I would probably be one of a kind in
terms of Quickies...
>
> You know, ONE advantage that this engine would have is that it is
designed to run direct drive at 4200 rpm. I haven't found the power
curve figures yet, but how much slower could you effectively spin
that prop? 3800? 3500? 3200? And what kinds of power output
could you get at those RPMs? How much power DO we need? How much
longer would these engines live spun at a slightly slower rate than
the stated 4200?
>
> I don't know if you saw his performance specs, but the Hummelbird
is very similar to the Quickie in terms of size and performance
envelope (and mission, for that matter!)
>
> Flying weigt, 288 lbs
> Full throttle exceeds VNE at 145 mph
> 3900 rpm 135 mph
> 3800 rpm 130 mph
> 3700 rpm 120 mph
> 3600 rpm 110 mph
>
> Fuel burn (at 4500 ASL) @ 3800 is 4 gph
>
> That's probably the achilles heel - fuel burn. Two stroke's gonna
burn twice the fuel (more or less) as it will burn fuel on EVERY
stroke of the piston. But that's also how they generate 72 hp out
of 79 lbs. Pretty amazing.
>
> SO - with all that extra power, how about an auxilliary fuel
tank? Another 4-5 gallons? Maybe mounted right behind the seat?
i'm gonna have to take a long critical look at the center of gravity
and the options for more fuel. An external tank? Belly tank? Wing
pods? Manual or electrical transfer pump? (not much good to have
electrical if you don't have an electrical system of some sort to
begin with...)
>
> BTW - if anyone else is looking, the magazine article was a little
light in terms of technical specs, but his web page does better.
>
>
www.geocities.com/cgifly2
>
> Best regards!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]