Login Form

QuickTalk 11 - LETTERS

"This has been an eventful week for the Quickie and me. Last week, I had my final inspection from the FAA and a friend who came by at the time asked to see it taxi. Well, I had been doing some high-speed runs, so I decided to do a couple for him.

On the third run, I nudged the stick and the next thing I knew, I was about forty feet in the air and no real ideas about how to get down. I did manage a decent landing with it and it's a good thing because I didn't even have a seat belt on. Man, what a thrill that was!

Over the next few days I made a total of 15 runway flights. I have found that it is VERY sensitive on the controls, especially in pitch. I also found it difficult to determine what was level flight, as I tended to fly nose up. Level flight looks like you are diving into the ground, but the visibility all around is fantastic.

I have now taken it on two off-airport flights and I've been pleased with the way it handles. I have had no real problems except more vibration in the panel than I would like. In the way of builder hints, I feel everyone will have to solve the problem of the rotating landing gear wheels during flight...Also, I find it impossible to wear my shoulder harness and still be able to reach the brake handle. All was done according to plans, so I wonder how others have solved this.

By the way, for your weight survey, mine weights 287 lbs, including wingtip nav and strobe lights and a Genave NAV/COM. I now have a lot of flight test data to discover and I'll be spending the better part of the summer getting its performance figures. I'll pass these along..."

Richard Pettit (#374), Circleville, OH

"Enclosed is my subscription renewal for a year of QUICKTALK. Although I am still just "dreaming" (not building), I enjoy your work immensely. I have 7,000 hours in light aircraft and the hope of having my own Q2 is still there, even tho' I'm pushing sixty years.

Keep up the good work. I especially like the Pilot Profiles, as they don't gloss over the problems and how THEY solved them."

C.W. Curtis, Bountiful, UT

"I am a new joiner, but an old Quickie flyer. I finished Quickie N58YC in March of '81. I thought I knew quite a bit about composite construction, but you guys put me to shame. Just received some of the back issues, and two of the current issues of QUICKTALK. In just one night's reading I found many answers that either confirmed my thinking, or provided a better way to construct plastic airplanes.

I can't contribute much over what has already been covered, but if I were to give advice on the first flight, I would stress the importance of keeping the right elbow and forearm snug against the right armrest to avoid over controlling the wrist stick. A former test pilot gave me that advice on my first flight. I'm glad he was around at the time.

Canner's Supply makes an excellent latex rubber glove for use with the epoxy. They are just about the right gauge to be used several times and still give the hands good feel. The ones I have been using are #392 amber latex. Most food processing plants use them. They give excellent protection, but don't go back to the project about six hours after a layup and touch the surface of the glass with your bare pinky just to see if it has cured. This is one way I have been bitten many times, but I'm a slow learner.

I've had very good luck with Aircraft Spruce. They have been very considerate in every way (no, I don't own stock in the outfit). QAC, on the other hand, can be very evasive and hard to contact on the telephone. I hope they have mended their ways, because personally they are a great bunch of guys when you talk to them face to face. I think they may have a phobia about the telephone.

I plan to install the new Onan 20 HP heads just as soon as I can get a set. My studs have been pulling for over a year now, and your informative letter was music to my ears.

Frankly, frustration, trail and error, innovation and delay are all of apart of the game. I don't know about you, but in spite of it all, I'm thankful that somewhere I managed to scrape up enough guts to become a part of it all.


Bob Campbell (#305), Modesto, CA

"I would like to pass to the members of QBA the dealings I have had with Quickie Aircraft Corporation concerning my cylinder heads. Way back in January of this year I ordered a 22 HP kit for my engine. When I finally got the kit about 3 weeks later, I noticed that the heads were warped about .010 right out of the box. I returned them to Quickie and after a month and numerous phone calls, another set was returned to me. They were also warped. I found it hard to believe they would send out a second set without checking them. Well, I returned these heads also, along with the rest of the kit minus the Kevlar mount and a request for some good stock heads and a refund. By now the date is the middle of March.

A month went by and no word, so I dropped Quickie a note to remind them of my situation. Two weeks went by without a word, so I sent a complaint to Mr. Sheehan personally. I told of the problems I have had with his company since day one.

I am sure we are all familiar with all of these types of problems concerning shipping, back orders, etc. I never heard a word from Quickie, so I sent another letter on May 9, 1983 (certified this time) to make sure they knew what was going on before I started to take serious action. Now the date is June and here I sit, out $175 and a set of cylinder heads. To top it all off, after the last QBA newsletter, it looks as though these cylinder heads will not work anyway.

Well, other than heads for my engine, my Quickie is just about finished. Hope the rest of you haven't had as much trouble as I have."

Bill Dvorak (#451), Freedom, CA

/Ed. Note: A letter dated August 23, 1983 from Mr. Dvorak informs us that he finally received his set of stock heads./

"The 19.9 HP heads do not pull the studs like the 22.5 HP Quickie heads do, and CHT is 290 degrees, not 390 degrees, with the graphite gaskets.

QAC has refused to pay for these heads, however. Perhaps we should institute a class action suit to recover our costs due to their ineptitude."

Chris Young (#469), Redding, CA

"...We discovered that Aircraft Spruce supplies QAC with the instruments for their kits. We returned several instruments (i.e. oil temp, airspeed indicator, ammeter, etc.) to them for credit toward a Westach 4 gauge. They gave us THEIR price toward credit, which was one-third to one-half of total cost, plus the instrument was back-ordered. For example, the book value of the airspeed indicator was $72.00. They gave us $28.00 credit. The moral is, sell your new instruments to someone who could use them. You get more money and the buyer saves shipping as well as about half the price!

If I could now add my two cents towards construction. First off, let me say that we have done quite a bit of engineering in the cockpit. The plans are so poor that if you do not have a good imagination, you're out of luck!...

Last, but not least, we have discovered that many parts can be taken from used aircraft. We have used such pieces as a trim wheel from a C-150, Dzus fasteners from the engine cowling and electrical switches from a Gazelle Helicopter. Even something as minor as the package to hold aircraft documents inside the aircraft. All are in excellent condition and have saved us quite a bit in expenses. One such place to get these parts is in Clearwater, Florida at "Golden Rule Aircraft Salvage". (813) 441-2175 or 447-4609. Check the aero traders. By the way, we bought a Continental 0-200 with 200 hours since major and fresh top end for $3500. These people are willing to deal. Make them an offer or make a deal to trade, they are willing to work with you.

Once again, thank you for your information. I hope others can get as much information from your newsletter as we have..."

Howard Pike, (#2416), Clearwater, FL

"It's time to sit down and write to the Association about my 140 hours in Quickie 406JP. It has been a ball and an adventure throughout it all, but a bit dangerous. First, a quick background about the writer. I am an ex-Air Force pilot with over 6,500 hours in all types of aircraft (DC-6s to F-105s) and have been an instructor and maintenance check pilot most of that time. Therefore, I do have a fairly broad basic background of flying various aircraft. That experience has definitely helped me "live" through the early flight hours in my Quickie, which often did not go well. Happily, there have been two builders who had completed their Quickies prior to mine in the local area. Their help was invaluable - particularly in the building area; however, not in the flight area since each aircraft had an early demise.

...I have a few suggestions, which may help those about to fly for the first time and those flying off their early hours. I had one he__ of a time preventing disaster. Those two fellows I previously mentioned who finished their Quickies prior to mine - How did their first flights go? Each crashed within the first couple hours of flight. Therefore, I didn't particularly wish to follow their lead. And this leads me to a Pet Peeve of mine with the Quickie Aircraft Corporation.

They have an invaluable gathering of useful information of why and how people have gotten themselves into trouble and later reported it to them. Therefore, I wish they would compile and publish that data in some convenient form. QAC is particularly remiss, in my opinion, in not compiling and distributing to all of its builders (and flyers) a consolidated list of mandatory inspections and changes. These are scattered throughout their newsletters and are very difficult to find. Put them on one sheet of paper and send them out - PRONTO!

Now that I have gotten that off my chest, back to the two friends who crashed right off the bat on their early flights. One had dirt in the carb and down he came with partial power. He destroyed the aircraft but walked away from it.

Friend number two crashed on takeoff when he (foolishly, he later admits) elected to continue a takeoff with reported gusts of 15 knots of direct crosswind. This caused low-time pilot friend #2 to crash immediately after takeoff from (I believe) over applying heavy cross controls in gusty winds and with the Quickie's lower power he could not fly out of the situation. Again, the aircraft was totally destroyed, but he also walked away from it. This shows how tough the little bird is and how well it absorbs punishment before the crash forces get to the pilot. A real plus!

Now, to the lessons I have learned from my 140 plus hours, in my little yellow Quickie. (Yes, I said yellow. No, I wouldn't do it again. Yes, it gets too hot and I plan to repaint it white.) In other words, believe and follow the plans. 'Nuff said.

I have experienced three main problems. They are vibration, rain effects and continuing engine problems. I have not solved any of these problems fully, but have learned to live with them and still fly safely.

V-I-B-R-A-T-I-O-N...The newsletters handle this problem fairly well, but I have only been able to reduce it to an 'acceptable' level. I now suspect the engine is out of balance. It is a serious problem. I have sent a vibration destroyed lower main engine mount back to QAC. Vibration had torn and broken the mount. I thought QAC would pass the word on to other Quickie builders. At least not yet.

I have experienced many vibration related failures particularly in the engine area. I have flown a friend's Quickie and his aircraft is silky smooth, and yet I can find no differences. I personally believe that there may be a large difference in manufacturing tolerances in the engine. One may be in balance and the next not. I wonder if QAC ever checks this?

R-A-I-N...AVOID IT at almost all costs. I simply do not believe all the 'information' QAC puts out in this area. At the very least, I find the aircraft instantly heads down. Adding back stick pressure does cure the problem, but the elevator is nearly fully deflected down. This, of course, adds more drag. This drops nearly 20 MPH from normal cruise airspeeds. The real problem is the landing - there just isn't any elevator authority remaining. Therefore, a 'roundout' just isn't possible. Even high airspeeds and power settings don't help. The aircraft just 'nods' nose down towards the runway at some much higher than normal (and totally unpredictable) airspeed. If this occurs, at say 15 or 20 feet in the air get ready for a wild fall, bounce and ride. If you are smart, just avoid any takeoff or landing in the rain - no matter how light the rain may be.

ENGINE PROBLEMS...I have had many. The most serious has been loss of power on takeoff. I was in the air about 100 feet when the engine quit. Luckily, I was able to do a 360-degree turn and land upon the very end of the runway. The culprit turned out to be a stuck open float level. Something (I never found out what) caused the float to stay open the engine flooded.

The most persistent engine problem has been a slow loss of RPM due to studs pulling out of the block near the valves. This has been excellently reported on in Issue #9, so I won't spend much time on this. Just to report that the new heads and gaskets have lessened the problem, and I recommend them highly...

...In conclusion, the Quickie is a great little bird, but it has its limitations and it shouldn't be pushed beyond those limitations. It's low powered; so don't fly off of short runways, in rain or when serious gusty winds are around. The crosswind limitation isn't properly addressed in the handbook. I would suggest that 12 knots would be the practical limit for a steady direct crosswind and less if the wind is gusty.

If you use your head, the Quickie can be a fun, safe, little aircraft if used within its design limitations. Good flying!"

J. P. Stroud (#409), Satellite Beach, FL

"...N60JW is now sporting a newly refinished canard and wing upper surface. Takeoff is greatly improved and climb rate more comfortable (forgot to mention I milled the heads and made a carb mod). Also, encountered some visible moisture and seemed to be able to maintain pitch without excessive backpressure...

Had a bad experience with a local 'authorized Onan Service Center'. My valves had a carbon deposit on the stems, which broke loose and stuck between the seat and face, causing blowback through the carburetor. I had the valves ground at an auto shop to the proper angle and was going to try a slight lap to seat the valve, but all efforts still showed daylight between seat and face (there shouldn't be). I called the above-mentioned business and inquired about angles and they said they would repair per factory specs. I mentioned about 'daylight' and they said they couldn't guarantee there wouldn't be any after they got through 'but, all were like that' and they would 'seat' after a few hours running time. I RELUCTANTLY left my engine there overnight. $30.00 later I still had daylight (no seal). The owner acted upset that I didn't believe his story that it would seat after running. I examined the seat face and determined I could have done better with a file and pocketknife! So-o-o-o, I called the service department at Harrison Equipment Corp. (Onan dealer - Houston). They agreed with my thinking (no daylight) and set an appointment. I told of the dealings with the service center. In less than one hour's time, they (one person) reground (again) both valve and seat face. It looked like the book says AND no daylight. Also, if there is proper seating, you can hear a distinct 'pop' when checking the two against each other. And THEN, they wouldn't charge me for their time or labor. VERY NICE PEOPLE!..."

Mike Conlin, (#60), Conroe, TX

"...It is middle winter here an seeding the crops is now finished. Will now start heating the room in my workshop for the fiberglass work, as the outside air temp is only in the 50's, and the mornings are sometimes frosty.

I'm very tempted to use the Konig engine from Fred Stubbs, Ontario, Canada. He has the full kit. It would improve performance and not have that vibration. Let me know if it has some bugs. Shipping seems to be my biggest problem..."

S. Gordon Laubach (#359), Kapunda, Australia

"I read with great interest the article by Ray Anderson and Harold Little in the MAY/JUN issue of QUICKTALK. This mod to 20 HP and new gaskets sounds like what we've been waiting for. My local Onan dealer will do the job, parts included, for about $190 Canadian.

Now the question - are you SURE this will work? I'm a first time builder and have clawed my way through this project making my share of errors (and waiting awful lengths of time for parts from QAC). After three years of work, I am up to engine mounting. I want to mount something which will not blow head gaskets or pull head bolts. This engine mod sounds really great!...

...After three years (not all of which was active building time), I have come to the conclusion that QAC, in particular Garry LeGare and Gene Sheehan, are a (editor deletion). I have been treated extremely badly by both of them. I have never experienced such TERRIBLE service from a company. I have good reason for these accusations, which I intend to document in article form and submit to SPORT AVIATION when I finish my Quickie. I'll be polite, but I certainly feel that a company like QAC should answer to the dissatisfied outcry from its builders.

Enough growling about that. As always, at this, all builders say the same thing, "...But, gee, it's a neat plant isn't it?" I do love my Quickie. Being the only girl in my EAA Chapter (#_142), I get a lot of good-natured kidding about the Quickie. Such fun!"

Fran Benton (#1023), British Columbia, Canada

I am becoming more and more upset with the way QAC treats its customers and builders. I get the impression that, at the factory, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Three months ago, the secretaries told me the new canard would be out in two weeks. Ron (Lundgren) told me on the sly that it would be more like two months. And in the meantime, they have pocketed my $600. I hope they are putting it to good use.

While it is too late for those of us in the middle of our projects...I call on QAC to build another Q2 from scratch, dictating new plans as they go, taking high quality photographs of each step and incorporating all plans changes..."

Saylor Milton (#2484), Fillmore, CA

"I am somewhat annoyed and frustrated at the number of Q2 builders who have apparently lost their enthusiasm. I have read comments like 'dismayed at the takeoff and landing speeds', 'airplane will not perform anywhere close to factory specifications', 'very dangerous airplane', 80 MPH touchdown speeds', etc., etc.

Just so you know that not everyone is dissatisfied, I offer these comments. Our Q2 (N2229) was purchased from a Quickie dealer (Deltec) at Oshkosh 1981. In May of 1982 the plane flew for the first time. I estimate approximately 100 hours per month were put into the project (850 hours to first flight). My son and I had never built a composite airplane prior to the Q2. In fact, I didn't even know what a hot wire forming method was. We worked only part time (weekends and evenings) with the exception of a one-week vacation set aside for the final finishing. My point is this, 800 to 1,000 hours is not a long time to build an airplane. I was a partner in a tube and fabric bi-wing that consumed over 3,000 hours. Besides, building an airplane is a great diversion from my regular job as a sales engineer. For those of you who are bitching about not being able to build an airplane in 500 hours or 1,000 hours, or whatever, you probably should sell out and forget the whole thing. To me, it beats a frustrating day on the golf course by a mile.

To date we have over 180 hours on the Q2 and I can say, without reservations, it is the most delightful airplane to fly of anything I can think of. I have made an instrument approach and landing with 300' ceilings and one-mile visibility caused by heavy rain. My son and I have both made takeoffs and landings in 90-degree crosswinds with winds in the 10 to 15 knot range. I have flown limited aerobatics - cuban 8's, loops, hammerheads and rolls, in addition to cross-country flying with up to 850 mile legs.

In all this time, I never considered the airplane 'dangerous'. Our only serious problem was flying in rain and with bugs before we installed a reflexer (if you don't like the price of the factory kit, make your own).

As to the airplane performing to specs: At a takeoff weight of 1,015 lbs., 95 degrees F., 75% humidity (density altitude about 4,000'), our takeoff roll was under 1,000', climb at reduced throttle with cowl doors full open was 600-700 FPM up through 7,500 density, TAS at 3,175 RPM (less than full throttle) worked out to 160 MPH. Our landing roll - touchdown to full stop was in about 1,300 feet with normal braking. My son was flying the airplane with me as ballast (that's what he said). Scott, my son, has a total of 140 hours flight time, 90 of which are in the Q2.

The airplane has a touchdown speed of about 60-65 MPH CAS (80 indicated due to low wing ground effect on pitot). We make approaches at 100 to 105 for better visibility and slow to 95 indicated on short final power off. Over the fence at about 80 indicated to touchdown. Those who think visibility is bad in a Q2 should fly a Pitts or Skybolt, or any other taildragger from the rear seat. We have forward visibility on the entire runway through touchdown and rollout.

My opinion is that no Q2 should fly without the reflexer installed. No Q2 should fly without someone VERY familiar with the design to inspect the finished product and advise the pilot what to expect. No Q2 should fly into or out of an airport less than 5,000' until at least 20 hours or so have been completed (the Q2 will float for a mile if approach speeds are not on the money).

If, after 20 hours or so, you still feel the airplane is 'dangerous', sell it and buy a Cessna. For those our there who are upset because the plans are not complete enough (they are not), or discover you can't build one in 500 hours (you can not), or need to vent your frustration about delivery problems (you probably have good reason), or feel that Quickie is using your money (they are), please save the rest of us your pain and suffering, we've already been there."

Duane Swing (#2229), Vandalia, OH

"...I would like comments by any QBA member who has some aeronautical background. I read with some interest and concern the submission in QUICKTALK #10 by Melvin Ellis. I have heard of other instances of landing difficulties and ground looping of Q2's. While I believe the Q2 can be landed safely, it would be more reassuring if it were more routine. I fly in the EA-6B "Prowler" for the Navy and believe there might be something that my aircraft uses that could be applicable to the Q2. The EA-6B is a flaperon (vice aileron) aircraft. For landing rollout, with weight on wheels, throttle retarded and a switch armed, the flaperons 'pop-up' simultaneously (leaving some travel for lateral control). This has the effect of spoiling any remaining lift of the wings. My proposal is to rig the Q2 ailerons with 'super reflexers' that would deflect both ailerons upward to as much as 60 degrees or whatever and leave enough residual aileron travel for lateral control during rollout. I would tie this system into the single brake handle assembly. I would rig it so that the first 2"-3" of brake handle movement would reflex the ailerons to their 'extended' position. Either by continuing to pull the handle or continuing the pull past a detent, the brakes would then start to be effective. Hopefully, the result of this system would be to spoil the lift of the main wing, putting more weight on the tailwheel, preventing skidding and also forcing the tailwheel down with the ailerons. This would only be accomplished after the main wheels had touched down and the canard has stopped flying (so the reflexed ailerons would not cause the aircraft to become airborne again).

This system would be easily adapted to the aileron reflexer system of the Q2. I would like very much any comments and suggestions by other QBA members. As a footnote, I called Quickie Aircraft about this. As usual, they don't want to talk about any mods to the Q2. What was of interest, however, was that I called on the BUILDER HOT LINE. Gene was not there at the time and the individual I talked to had never built a Q2 and had never flown the GU canard. Since the new canard has only been on 81QA for less than a year, his time with the LS mod must be limited. Is this the type of person that should be answering the hotline?

I just received the new canard plans. Well, they are really just the hotwire templates and jigging templates with a single sheet of brief instructions. Complete instructions are supposedly forthcoming. Significant, however, is that the new canard layup should be considerably easier. The canard spar mounts between the two halves similar to the shear web of the previous canard. The two graphite spar halves (L & R) are joined in the center, top and bottom, with MULTIPLE layers of UNI 3.5" x 15"-20" before attaching the foam. The skins are only 3 plies (two at 45 degrees, one spanwise). This should make layup significantly easier. Also, the wheel pants are different - the axle holes farther forward and a recommended toe out to improve ground handling. Also, there are sparrow strainers on the elevators.

Well, it is getting late and my typing is getting worse. Keep up the good work..."

Alan Schaffter (#2792), Oak Harbor, WA

"Attached is a copy of my letter, and two attachments, dated July 21, 1983 to the Editor of HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT which was sent in response to his article in the August issue entitled 'How safe are Non-certified Powerplants?'

Upon reading the letter and attachments, you will readily see my problem and see that I am now in litigation with Quickie Aircraft. /Ed. note: Mr. Ulrich had forwarded letters from a New York GADO safety inspector and A&P Inspector indicating that the Revmaster engine he received had been of questionable airworthiness due to various factors./

I am now in the process of preparing a formal complaint to the Federal Trade Commission as from all indications, there is and has been, a gross violation of the Consumer Protection Act in this transaction.

I would very much appreciate hearing from any of the membership that has experienced any problems with their purchase agreement not being fulfilled by Quickie (Q2 and Quickie builders also). If any members have had problems relative to the 2100DQ, I would also appreciate hearing from them.

You are probably wondering why all of this is necessary. I, too, would like to know the answer. However, there are no police for the experimentalist, so it becomes necessary for each to fight his own battle when he cannot obtain what he paid for."

Donald Ulrich (#2165), RD 1, Box 248, New Hartford, NY

"...I am in the process of changing over to Fred Stubbs' version of replacement with the Konig four-cylinder radial. The Onan performed probably as well as it should, but I wanted something with less vibration and more horsepower. I can't say yet if I have accomplished this, but should be able to tell you something within about a month. I am supposed to receive the new engine this weekend, July 23. (Was ordered around the middle of April, so you can see delivery was slow.) I had the fifth ordered and now (Stubbs) says he has about 15 orders. Delivery should be quicker now that he has overcome some of the production problems. I say the Onan is probably O.K. for a light pilot, but I need more horsepower for safety's sake.

I would like to trade info with other Quickie owners who have switched over to the Stubbs Aero-Konig engine change as to their flight characteristics - final weight, rate of climb, cruise speed, engine flight time, problems, etc."

The Quickie airframe is all you could ask for, except for the 'wet-wing' flying (?) characteristics. I hope we can solve this in the future..."

Bill Thurman (#174), 1826 Albemarle Dr., Hixon, TN 37343 (615) 842-2311

"...The builders' attitude will change and irritations quickly subside once that beautiful machine is in the air."

Gloria Adams (#528), Pineville, LA

"I'd like to write this letter about a point of view often seen in QUICKTALK. It was expressed recently by a builder who said: '(QAC is) in a hurry for their money, but in somewhat less of a hurry to ship. I'm waiting to see just what one gets for $600 besides two carbon spars.' (Issue #10)

I've read many comments similar to this in tone, inferring that QAC is a typical rip-off operation. I don't think this is true - consider things from QAC's point of view. The homebuilt market is highly competitive and not all that large. How is QAC to pay its bills? Of the $12,000 full kit price for a Q2, I doubt that even half is QAC's part, the rest is supplier cost. Of the $600 we paid for the new canard, QAC probably gets no more than half. But that's not all we get for the $600. Who paid for all the research time locating the new airfoil, constructing the new canard, and all the development time proving that the new canard is actually an improvement?

For those of us planning to build the Q-200, the new package #2 price is not the Q2's $2000, but $3000! Now what do we get for the extra $1000? Nothing more than a slightly redesigned cowl, a couple more instruments and a different exhaust? I was dismayed, too, when I saw the new price. But I also get a sheet of paper. That paper is the Q-200 specs that Peter Lert of AIR PROGRESS was paid to determine.

Now how is QAC to pay these costs? It's hard to imagine that these extra $1000 even come close to paying the Q-200's development cost for QAC.

I had an opportunity to stop by QAC at Mojave in early July. Perhaps we all imagined that QAC was a multi-million dollar outfit with thousands of kits coming off an assembly line. In reality, this is what I saw: QAC is housed in a small-to-medium sized hangar with a small attached office. Inside was the Q-200 prototype and a Quickie. I nosed around all over the place and came to the conclusion that QAC's main effort (QAC, correct me if I'm wrong!) was to complete the details of the Q-200 kit which had yet to be shipped to anyone, and to work out the Citroen engine for the Quickie. The new carbon spars were coming in and the new canard instructions were due to arrive from the printer. The forward opening canopy kit was also ready to ship. That's all - the other problems would have to wait, including the problems with the construction plans. QAC would probably be willing to admit that a second edition would be nice - incorporating all the experience they have had, plus many of the suggestions in QUICKTALK.

But where's the manpower to come from for such a massive rewrite? When I was there I estimated that QAC probably employed four or five people - Sheehan, Lundgren, a secretary and one or two others to actually do the daily work on the airplanes. It's really a mystery to me how they make the monthly payroll."

J.H. Schenck (#2784), El Paso, TX

"Old 142WT cheated death and the Oshkosh jinx once again! I delayed leaving Oshkosh until Friday noon because of the weather, but then was able to make the 500 miles trip in two hops. The weather was reasonable VFR, except for scud north of Chicago.

The delay did allow me to make the QAC Quickie forum on Friday morning, which not very many made. There were only about 60 people present when it began. Gene reported that the Citroen engine was initially giving about the same performance as the Onan but that, with the new camshaft and smaller cowling bumps that it allowed, he expected an improved climb rate and about 10 MPH faster cruise for the conversion. The only problem, he said, was that carburetor vaporization was such as to make hand propping rather difficult and that, because of the weight problem, he didn't want to offer the Citroen with a starter for the Quickie with the current canard. He said also that he plans to finish the flight part of the Citroen conversion (7 flight hours, so far) in the next 25-35 days and then try the new airfoil on the Quickie. The price for the Citroen was given as about $1500 - but it wasn't clear if this included everything needed, such as prop and cowling, etc.

Gene said he hasn't flown the aileron reflexer on the Quickie yet; he noted that it was possible that the device might make it possible to induce a departure from controlled flight (e.g. a spin). He was also asked about flutter problems with the 'big engine' Quickies that are appearing and said that he doesn't expect flutter to be a problem until speeds reach 200 to 220 MPH, but that flight tests naturally were needed to verify that. He noted that he had looked at a dozen alternative engines for the Quickie. He also said that he had several flight hours using a rotary (Wankel-type) engine from Israel that weighted 110 lbs. (rather than a claimed 66 lbs.) before giving up on it. He said that QAC is working on some improvements in the intake and exhaust systems for the Onan, which could give better combustion and perhaps a little more power. He said that different Quickies fly differently (abundantly true, if my conversations at Oshkosh are at all representative) and that no one really knows just why. Finally, he turned the forum over to Amsoil people (after a bare minimum of questions) and I left.

We made a careful comparison of QAC's climb prop (27x44) and the standard prop after returning. The standard prop gave a measurably better climb angle on takeoff (an additional 60' a few thousand feet after the end of the runway) as well as 190 FPM versus 160 FPM on a timed climb at 75 IAS from 1500' MSL to 2500' MSL under essentially the same conditions. Static rpm was 3090 RPM on the standard prop versus 2810 RPM on the climb prop (using a photo tachometer accurate to 10 RPM and confirmed by an indicated 200 RPM difference on climb out). The day was hot (85 degrees) and humid and it is interesting to calculate what the rate of climb would have been for sea level standard conditions and at gross weight of 480 pounds (rather than the 515 pounds we had). The result I obtain is 304 FPM given in the owner's manual for 480 lbs. and 18 HP, although it should be noted that I was not using quite the recommended best rate of climb speed. Under the actual flight conditions, our climb rate implies about 5400' to clear a 100' obstacle. No wonder Quickies are roosting in trees! (We are going to try to get QAC to take back their 'climb' prop.)

The best news we had when we returned with an additional 12.5 hours on the plane was that the head bolts on the Onan did NOT require retorquing! It appears that the 20 HP heads and the graphite gaskets are going to enable a (miniscule) steady-state power condition for Quickies, and that it worth a lot. It means we can continue to fly with the Onan until a clearly good replacement is available."

Will Hubin (#295), Kent, OH

"...At the moment I believe I am leading Robert Herd for the title of "Longest Time to Build a Quickie". I hope to let him take the lead after I settle into our new house and decide what to do about an airfoil for the canard...The wine-and-cheese-get-together at Oshkosh was very enjoyable and interesting. The newsletter is much appreciated. Keep up the good work."

Paul Paulikas (#144), Lisle, IL 60532

"I have designed and built trailer for my Q2 which can be loaded and unloaded by only ONE person. It also holds the front end of the plane so that the tail can be removed or attached without any help. The trailer with the plane on it can be rolled through a standard double door into your garage. I believe a Quickie can be accommodated as well.

I would like to find out if there is any interest in such a trailer from other builders. The cost has not been exactly established, but the local welding shop estimates that they could be built for less than $1500. Please drop me a note if interested.

John Louw (#2607), 31280 Calle Felicidad, Temecula, CA 92390

I have just completed cutting out the jigging and hotwiring templates for the new canard airfoil. To my dismay, I discovered that the 'talking numbers' on the elevator hotwiring templates do not match, and there are no numbers on the torque tubes slots. It is obvious from this, that QAC has not constructed a canard from the plans which have been sent to the builders...How can I be certain that the completed aircraft will perform as advertised or even be airworthy?"

Ron Cross (#2397), Tulsa, OK

"I guess it is time I wrote a few words to you. I enjoyed Oshkosh very much. The bull sessions in the dorm and the QBA forum were very informative, although I would like to have seen more positive things mentioned at the forum.

Q2 number N22LQ lifted off the runway on September 3rd for its first flight (a runway flight). The tail lifted off first, with full aft stick, so the liftoff was aborted about five feet above the runway. I taxied back to the ramp and we adjusted the aileron reflexer for about 1 degree up aileron. (The aileron reflexer was built from scrap material using the plans in the MAY/JUN issue of QUICKTALK.)

A second runway flight was planned. This time it lifted off in the three-point attitude. I climbed to about 50 feet and started easing the power off for a landing. As the mains hit the runway rather hard, we bounced back in the air. It was at this instant that I decided that air is a lot softer than concrete. Full power was added and we were climbing out at about 80 MPH...After a few minutes flying, the tower cleared me to land. A long final approach at about 90 MPH was set up. As I came in over the numbers, a beautiful three-point landing was made - three feet above the runway! When the wings finally quit flying, contact was made with the runway. (Boy, was it!) We bounced and bounced and bounced. I just held full aft stick and let her bounce. After about five times, it decided to stay on the runway. Directional control was no problem and a go-around could easily have been made.

One thing I noticed on the first flight was the right wing was heavy...The two bolts in the elevator torque tubes were loosened and pressure applied on the elevators until they appeared to be equal. The bolts were retightened. On second flight it flew hands off.

A few words about N22LQ. The project was started about two years ago. It weight 560 lbs. empty including a 20 lb. battery and 20 lbs. of radios...It was found that the CG was forward of the envelope with a 185 lb. pilot and 15 gallons of fuel. So, ten pounds of lead were added in front of bulkhead 175. This brought me to the exact center of the CG envelope (a must for first flights).

It has been a very enjoyable project. Response from Quickie, Aircraft Spruce and Revmaster were excellent. Good help from people like Joe Reindl and Maury Condon (both Q2 builders) along with understanding from my wife, Delores, is what sport aviation is all about.

P.S. I am a 400 hour private pilot and the first flight in N22LQ was also my first flight in a taildragger."

James Langley (#2092), Republic, MO

You can order a PDF or printed copy of QuickTalk #11 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.