Q1_Aircraft: C.G.

how is C.G. found of Q1 with the pilot at the seat? if the wieght
varies say a different pilot is flying how does this change
compensated. where does the c.g move?

thank you Tri-Q1... thank you very much.
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Tri-Q1' <rryan@...> wrote:
>
> In the Files section,
>
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft/files/
>
> See: Quickie P.O.H.
>
> Look at, Center of gravity envelope: p.22
>
> For CG:
> 1. Weigh the plane with no fuel then again with fuel for min/max
> empty CG.
> 2. Weigh the plane as above with the pilot for pilot CG location.
>
> Now you know where the fuel CG is and where the pilot CG is. You
> should find that the planes CG is on or near the planes fuel CG
with
> a 170# pilot. Heavier pilot moves the CG aft.
> Once the plane is set up correctly the Q1 can handle a large pilot
> weight variation 140#-210#.
>
> Ryan
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'poodina1' <poodina1@> wrote:
> >
> > how is C.G. found of Q1 with the pilot at the seat? if the
wieght
> > varies say a different pilot is flying how does this change
> > compensated. where does the c.g move?
> >
>

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN GET SOME PICS /SCHEMATICS OF THE SPARS

poodina1 < poodina1@... > wrote:

thank you Tri-Q1... thank you very much.
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Tri-Q1' <rryan@...> wrote:
>
> In the Files section,
>
> groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft/files/
>
> See: Quickie P.O.H.
>
> Look at, Center of gravity envelope: p.22
>
> For CG:
> 1. Weigh the plane with no fuel then again with fuel for min/max
> empty CG.
> 2. Weigh the plane as above with the pilot for pilot CG location.
>
> Now you know where the fuel CG is and where the pilot CG is. You
> should find that the planes CG is on or near the planes fuel CG
with
> a 170# pilot. Heavier pilot moves the CG aft.
> Once the plane is set up correctly the Q1 can handle a large pilot
> weight variation 140#-210#.
>
> Ryan
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'poodina1' <poodina1@> wrote:
> >
> > how is C.G. found of Q1 with the pilot at the seat? if the
wieght
> > varies say a different pilot is flying how does this change
> > compensated. where does the c.g move?
> >
>

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible 'new car' smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

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

ryan you the man! thanks Im printing them out now.......this is some
useful stuff




--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Ryan' <rryan@...> wrote:
>
> 68.178.49.203/jon/Q1Plans.pdf
>
> Ryan
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , ROBERTE SHARUSAN <wraith757@>
> wrote:
> >
> > DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN GET SOME PICS /SCHEMATICS OF THE
SPARS
> >
> > poodina1 <poodina1@> wrote:
> >
> > thank you Tri-Q1... thank you very much.
> > --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Tri-Q1' <rryan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Files section,
> > >
> > > groups.yahoo.com/group/Q1_Aircraft/files/
> > >
> > > See: Quickie P.O.H.
> > >
> > > Look at, Center of gravity envelope: p.22
> > >
> > > For CG:
> > > 1. Weigh the plane with no fuel then again with fuel for
min/max
> > > empty CG.
> > > 2. Weigh the plane as above with the pilot for pilot CG
location.
> > >
> > > Now you know where the fuel CG is and where the pilot CG is.
You
> > > should find that the planes CG is on or near the planes fuel CG
> > with
> > > a 170# pilot. Heavier pilot moves the CG aft.
> > > Once the plane is set up correctly the Q1 can handle a large
> pilot
> > > weight variation 140#-210#.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'poodina1' <poodina1@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > how is C.G. found of Q1 with the pilot at the seat? if the
> > wieght
> > > > varies say a different pilot is flying how does this change
> > > > compensated. where does the c.g move?
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

---

> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible 'new car' smell?
> > Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

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]

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]