*3D Modeling of the Q2 Help Needed

Hi Nate,

I like to shake the aircraft engine world with a new idée for engines.Hybrids with 40% constant gasoline power and 60% electric ??boost?? power for take-off and climbing.
A reason the more for building the 30/40hp Q1 engine.
As soon that I finish an engine I like to buy or build a Q1 to test it.
Next step is adding the electric unit. This combination should deliver 70 to 90 hp, perfect for a Q2. As all this is going on during my spare time (no intention of making money out of it) I??m occupied for at least 3 years.

A Q4 or Q6??. I like the idée. I??m not that old after all!

Regards Johan

Hello Nate , is there a way to contact you ? (email...)
I have some very strong interest in Q1/Q2 3D models , and I'd like to explain you my concerns!
thanks
nicolas

Since you are going to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, here are is a couple of ideas.

The LS1 canard was originally designed
for wing tip landing gear. So with that in
mind, If we are looking at a new tri-Q design
lets bring the canard to a netural or flat
desind or slitely positive diehederal, since
the orginal design of that flying surface was for ground clearance for tip mounted landing gear.

Also the tail cone can now be some what stright since it is no longer a tail wheel
aircraft

Last, the air intake on the cowling is
goofing looking. eminate that intake all toghter an design it more like a Cesna 150.

Of course all of this just to make the
air plane look much better.

Your thoughts

Charles

Are you speaking of the airfoil or the anhedral of the canard?


In all honesty I don't see the benefit in a Tri-Q configuration. The original wheel in canard configuration would seem to have less drag and less overall structure weight.

I've never flown a Q-2 so I'm not sure what its flying characteristics are but unless there is a really good reason to get rid of the canard mounted landing gear and put dihedral in the canard... I just can't see a reason to change it. If anything I'd consider a pair of casters for front landing gear and add a rear landing gear to make it a 4 wheel gear with front steering.

From my point of view the drag reduction and weight savings of having the gear in the canard just makes a lot of sense if you are building an airplane with a high cruise speed and low fuel burn.

I'm not sure what the visual problem is with the Q-2 Cowl. I'm really not a huge fan of the C-150 cowl (thats why I fly now). I think the Q-200 is a much nicer looking design. Cleaner, and sleeker.

Perhaps you can send me a picture of the cowl that you don't like and I will see what you mean. All the Q-200 and Q-2 pictures I've found have a nice looking cowl.

There certainly is a reason for doing things the way people have on the Q-2 and Q-200... drag. The Cessna 150's drag numbers are undoubtedly much much higher then the Q-200. I'd hate to increase drag just to make the front of a Q-2 look like a C150.


As to the tail. Again I think there are some aerodynamic benefits to a downward curved tail. 1) It produces a small amount of lift. 2) Its shape and lift are stabilizing in terms of longitudinal stability 3) I think it looks cool. A flat no curve airplane is boring in my opinion.

I'd keep the tail curve there if it were up to me... unless there were a really good reason to change it (drag, lift, flying characteristics or safety etc..).

Again I'm welcome to suggestions and good reasons why to change things... But keep in mind I will be computer modeling and analyzing the aircraft prior to finalizing a design. My goals are pretty simple. 1) Saftey, 2) Peformance, 3) fuel burn.

I'm looking to build a nice airplane thats fun to fly, safe and affordable to keep in the air. So as long as all suggestions are in line with these goals I'm open to them.


Thanks for writing with your suggestion. I look forward to hearing any counterpoints or further suggestions you might have.

Nate

My e-mail address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. I can be contacted there.

I like the idea of electric in airplanes but there are a few good reasons you don't see it currently.

1) Practicality:

2) Cost

3) Weight

4) Storing power

5) Saftey


The main problem with such a hybrid aircraft is storing the power and using it. Electric motors today require one of two methods of controlling them. You would use either an AC or DC motor. If DC you'd need a special DC voltage and/or current controller. In the AC world you'd use a DC to AC inverter with frequency control. This wouldn't be a too big a deal but they can weight 20+ lbs.

The next issue is storing enough energy for climb out. You'd need either zinc air batteries or lithium polymer batteries or some other new fangled batteries. The lithium polymer batteries typically require special charging circuits that are microprocessor controlled. Lithium polymer batteries are also a bit on the expensive side.

I don't want to sound like I'm shooting the idea down... but there are some issues with it. Like what do you do if your batteries are dead and you need to climb? In a typical airplane you either have fuel and full power or you don't (unless something weird happens to the engine and you can't get full power anyway). So I see that as a potential issue.

How far along are you on your engines? I'd be interested to learn more about your approach and design implementations.

Do you have a motor and controller picked out? Do you have an engine picked out? What kind of batteries are you considering using?



I think the idea of a Q-4 or Q6 would be really great. I am very interested in designing and building one. I really think the canard mounted landing gear makes the Q-2 a great travel plane since there is no need for drag increasing structures on the outside of the plane. I think a few modifications to the Q-2 canard gear can make it easier to land, safer and easier for pilots to fly.


I'd be interested to further discuss this idea.


Nate