Login Form

QuickTalk 4 - LETTERS

".....I'm sorry to say, but I fully agree with the letters from Ron Carlson (Issue #1) and Richard Pettit (Issue #2). I too have had a regular horror story of broken promises, unanswered letters and interminable waiting on backordered items. As early as I bought into the Q2 adventure (Q2 #2059, I am still waiting on parts from both Packages 1 and 2, despite five written correspondences and twelve phone calls relative to backordered items since initial delivery. One area that tipped the scales of tolerance was the arrival of two remanufactured instruments.....

Briefly, I would like to put two myths to rest:

1. You do not get everything you need to build a finished Q2 less paintand battery.

Raw materials short (partial list):

Micro beads - need additional 1.5 lbs.

Peel Ply - need additional 100 yards.

BID cloth - need additional 10 yards.

Aluminum - need additional 6"x4"x1/8" 2024-T3

Raw material cut close (too close!):

Spacer material - adequate only if you can make two pieces of metal from one without molecular destruction.

Orange foam - no room for errors; hardly a first time builder's virtue.

2. The kit plane will not accommodate a 6'-8" pilot. The prototype may have but the kit plane will not. Being 6'-5-1/2" and having sat in 81QA at Oshkosh '81, I can assure you that tall pilots will have to obtain an untrimmed canopy and be prepared to make bulkhead alterations. Hopefully then, and only then, will I fit and I still doubt a 6'-8" pilot will.

.....There's no excuse for these problems. Having gotten this off my chest, I promise to contribute to future issues in a more positive fashion."

Thomas Keysa (#2059), Knoxville, TN

".....(QAC)has been too skimpy on materials like foam, plywood, peel-ply, etc. They said all that was needed to finish the kit was a battery and paint, yet so far we have been short screen, wood dowel & float, and PVC pipe for the gas tank. We think the wheels are too small for grass landing strips, yet to exchange from Quickie would cost more than to buy outright locally.....I understand that the shipping charges are high because Quickie made a mistake, yet we're not being reimbursed."

Doug Swanson (#2454), Eden Prairie, MN

"The Quickie kits are advertised to be complete except for battery and paint. I would be interested in knowing what others were short. Looking back through my invoices I found I had to buy: 1 gal. kit epoxy, 5 rolls of peel-ply, 6 yds. BID fiberglass and 1 lb. glass bubbles.

Don Ralph (#300), Marquette, MI

".....Thank you for the front-hinged canopy drawings. (Issue #3, S.W. Hanke). Now I feel more comfortable attempting the canopy.

I'm sure I'm not alone regarding the problem of "wet" wings, which has me quite concerned. I want to use my Q2 in IFR conditions, which around Minnesota means rain. There are products on the market, which reduce the surface tension of water, which could be employed to the wing to test the flight characteristics. By reducing the tendency for water to bead (from waxing for example), the wing's normal shape should remain nearly normal. There is also a product used to prevent fogging which might work. If someone would be willing to experiment in this area, it might prove a life saver!"

Craig Stangland (#2463), Minnetonka, MN

/The following series of letters between Quickie Aircraft Corporation and the Quickie Builders Association are for our members' private use. They are presented to help explain the position and relationship between each organization./

To: Quickie Builders Assn. (Dated April 23, 1982)

Congratulations, it appears that your newsletter is off to a quick start. Quickie Newsletter 16 will be mailed Wednesday with one of your flyers in each one.

I do have some comments on your format. I hope you take them as constructive criticism and that you will keep or discard whatever you feel is appropriate.

If you are willing, I would like to have copies of correspondence involving builders having problems with either QAC or its dealers, so that I may try to resolve such problems.

It would appear that you do not intend to screen much of the input that appears in the newsletter. This could lead the reader to believe that whatever you print is true rather than the reader evaluating comments and suggestions on their own merits. As an example the comments from Mr. Falkiner (Ed. Note: see Issue #2) are rather irresponsible and are not consistent to the best of my knowledge with the facts of the investigation. Also the "emergency flap" control he discussed could destroy the aircraft if accidentally deployed at high speed. Perhaps a standard paragraph for each newsletter stating the responsibility of each reader to evaluate the material would be appropriate.

QAC does not think that we should try to use your newsletter to debate the merits of the positions put forward. We will use it as a means of providing us the input so necessary to support our customers. On balance, I wonder how many satisfied customers will take the time to write you?

See you at Oshkosh,



To: Quickie Aircraft Corporation (Dated May 10, 1982)

Let me thank you again for inserting our flyer in Quickie Newsletter 16. We have had excellent response since its distribution and continue to expand our membership.

We welcome your comments concerning our format. We will always be open to your suggestions to improve our method of disseminating information. We totally agree with your remark that builders should evaluate comments in QUICKTALK and decide themselves their relative merits. My remarks in the upcoming MAY/JUN issue are going to address this question as well as that of legal liabilities.

In our defense, we do indeed carefully review the letters and comments received. In the particular example of Mr. Falkiner's "emergency flap", we are aware of the possible inconsistencies with the on-going investigation. We made a point to call Mr. Falkiner (long distance to Canada) and confirm his personal sources of information. In any event, the point may be moot. If Mr. Falkiner believed that such a flap might be beneficial, we need informed individuals, especially yourself, to list possible disadvantages. We believe that any substantive changes in the structure and aerodynamics of the Quickies should not be undertaken without consultation with the designers. When such changes arise, we would prefer your comments to avoid possible grief.

The point you make of avoiding debates between QAC and our members is well taken. In most cases this might lead to unneeded antagonism. However, as I mentioned in my letter of February 24, we would welcome you to comment on particular builder problems. We could pose a single question to your staff every issue concerning construction, which we have found to be echoed by our members. The answer could then prevent repeated inquiries to your office.

Finally, we will find it impossible to forward copies of all correspondence involving builder problems. On occasion, several builders may bring up a mutual problem in their dealings with QAC. If this occurs, we will be glad to outline the problem in enough detail for you to consider its merits. We far prefer "problems" to be presented to their source first. Alternate resolutions are sought only after a lack of timely response from the vendor. In any event, this is the philosophy we intend to put forward in our member queries.

We will be looking forward to your response and speaking with you at Oshkosh.



To: Quickie Builders Assn. (Dated May 17, 1982)

I am pleased at the response to your flyer. In regards to your idea of posing a single question to us each issue, I think that service is adequately covered in our newsletter "Builder Tips" feature. Builders with problems should be talking directly to our dealers or us and not depending on an intermediary. Any questions from builders that occur more frequently than twice, we try to cover in the newsletter.

The whole subject of us commenting on items in your newsletter is ripe with potential problems. Lack of comment by us on any particular issue could be construed as approval even if it is clearly represented not to be with an overall disclaimer.

I agree with your statement that problems should be presented to their source first. However, alternate resolutions are sought often, not for lack of a timely response, but rather for the perception, true or untrue, of a lack of adequate response. Generally, in building airplanes as well as in life, there are few pure black and white subjects. I do appreciate you offering to outline problems of a consistent nature so that we can investigate them ourselves.

Good luck and I look forward to seeing you at Oshkosh.



You can order a PDF or printed copy of QuickTalk #4 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.