Ultimate Q2/Q-200 Information Package!

Login Form

QuickTalk 24 - LETTERS

Dear Jim,

My check for renewal. You do a fantastic job. I have learned much from your letter. I am about 2/3 through my Q-2, and am glad it's going slow in one way because the changes (new canard) and so forth would have been missed had I been going like I first thought I would.

Don Franzen #2429


Jim:

Please renew my subscription. I don't know how I managed for 3 years without you guys! You provide an extremely valuable service in a very professional manner; keep up the good work.

My project (someday a Q-200) is at the wing building stage. After a brief period of naivete' I stopped estimating completion dates!

Philip Bryan #2768, Rochester, NY


Dear Mr. Masal,

This letter to QBA has been germinating in my mind after reading and re-reading the last few issues; with this letter I offer my head on the chopping block if someone wants to take a whack; my intention, however, is to start a conversation among members regarding the purpose of the newsletter and whether or not the nature of the editorial comment ultimately serves that purpose.

Specifically, I am referring to the continuing biting criticism of QAC and what appears to me to be the expression of a personal vendetta against Gene Sheehan primarily in the form of cutting asides, sarcasm, and snide remarks by our editor.

I have no doubt that, in the minds of those expressing those thoughts, there is ample justification for the remarks and many occasions when they have been aroused and offended by things with Gene has done to them or not done for them. The question I wish to put before QBA is whether the caustic, anti-QAC overtones of the newsletter serve any good purpose.

Does it serve any useful purpose to have a newsletter which, when read by someone who may be considering purchase of one of the kits offered for resale (save thousands!), gives the impression that there's a war on between QAC and QBA and that the president of QAC is simply an object of continued ridicule?

I know of one Q-200 flying whose owner dismisses QBA out of hand as "a bunch of sour grapes" and won't consider associating with us.

My sense is that we'll all be better off in the long run if we send only positive energy towards QAC, accept Gene Sheehan as he is, knowing that he is doing the best he can (just like all of us), and build the association in a way that one, reflects our collective pride in the Quickie/Q-2/Q-200 aircraft; two, supports each of us to complete and fly our ships with pleasure and safety; and three, provides the network of communication between us "birds of a feather" which will become increasingly valuable in the years ahead.

For anyone unwilling to dump the garbage he's carrying around about Gene, I recommend personal correspondence direct to him or, if that doesn't satisfy, try primal scream therapy. In the course of building an aircraft, I'm sure we have all benefited at one time or another from a good eyeball-busting shriek.

The fact that the editor is willing to publish this letter in its entirety, something I have no proof of at this moment, shows me that he is open to having the newsletter be a truly open forum and is willing to look at how the tone of it can reflect the views of the membership. Any comments?

Fred R. Klein #2849, Chevy Chase, MD

ED. NOTE: It has never required a "dare" for me to print any letter in QUICKTALK. Very few are left out, consequently what you have already read reflects the views of the membership, at least those that express a view.

A private scream doesn't solve a problem, only makes it tolerable. (We Americans are going to "tolerate" this country into a second rate power in my lifetime.) A public outcry, however, works wonders, but first the public has to be informed.

Less than 5% of the thousands of square inches of QUICKTALK copy is devoted to what your friend calls "sour grapes". Anyone who dismisses 95% of a good thing because he only sees the 5% he dislikes is the kind of myopic ass who would cut off his nose to spite his face. Don't use him as a role model.


Memo to: QBA

Subject: Possible Rape!

From: Eugene Comer

In late August I ordered the new LS-1 canard for my Quickie. Some 2 months later I received two tapered carbon spars for the canard (this is about all you get for the $600). Since I had started the original, I needed more foam: 2 pieces 10x20x96".

This is where the "anger" starts. I should qualify it by saying that for the most part I've received good operation from QAC up to now. I was advised by Aircraft Spruce and QAC not to have the foam cut for UPS shipment, and on Dec. 4, the two billets arrived ($87.20 each) along with a freight bill of $93.21 (to IN), for a total of $267.61. Dow Corning had stamped the foam as a floatation billet to be used for marine purposes only. This rang a bell and on researching the matter the next day, I found that SEARS has the same billet for $69.99 + $7.77 shipping for a 2 piece total of $147.75. At this point, I'm smoking with anger at QAC who could have scored a big plus for their side by a simple mention of this fact (or suggesting a Marina as a source), and saving us "poor folks" a hefty $119.86.

It's rather strange in a way for me to write this because reading this type of letter in past QUICKTALKs has many times offended me. Now it's hit my pocketbook. Little different now!

I haven't received any construction info yet on the Quickie LS-1, only an interim set for the Q-2. Someday I'm BOUND to finish my Quickie and I hope the enjoyment erases some of this painful and EXPENSIVE lesson. Merry Christmas!!


From Henry Gardiner #570:

How well is QAC filling orders since going Chapter 11? Here are my experiences:

3/21/85 - I call QAC for prices and shipping delay for a Quickie kit. Debbie Shubert initially quotes 10 days, but I accept 3 weeks. I get off phone, and send that day a cashier's check for an amount $1700 over her quote (due to my misunderstanding) with order that specifies shipment within the agreed 3 weeks.

4/8/85 - Shubert calls to inform me of overpayment, and receives OK to make this day the start of the 3-week shipping period. Cashier check is cashed this day.

5/7/85 (4 wks) Rodeway Express picks up portion of kit packaged by Aircraft Spruce & Specialty. It arrives in good order and at least 95% complete. A parts list is enclosed. Over subsequent months Aircraft Spruce sends monthly statement of backorder situation. These statements reveal that QAC has been given 30 day net terms by Aircraft Spruce. Meanwhile QAC has sent plans and manuals.

5/28/85 (7 wks) - I called QAC to remind them that they are 1 month overdue. Shubert says that QAC is having delivery problems with Aircraft Spruce and that some materials will be sent UPS that week. She also offers Gene Sheehan's time to answer construction questions, but I have none. A few days later a letter comes advising that material will be shipped "shortly", and again offers technical help. $1700 refund check and bill of sale are enclosed.

8/12/85 (18 wks) - I call Ron Lundgren at QAC for prefab gas tank within two weeks. He promises delivery in 1 week.

8/22/85 (19 wks) - A 55% complete large tire option, a 70% complete engine installation option, and 83% of the custom fabricated parts are shipped by QAC. Most items in the engine installation option I already have from Aircraft Spruce, so I'll send them back. The large tire option is evidently a swap for the gas tank that didn't arrive, and that's fine with me. I still lack canopy, engine mount, cowling among other items.

9/02/85 (21 wks) - Date this note is written.


Note to Editor,

Over 8 months ago I mailed builder tips to you - never saw them in print and did not keep a copy so...

Also please screen the letters you receive. I don't like reading that Joe Smo's amp meter was the wrong color - try to keep it to VALUABLE information, no hearsay or rumors if possible.

Mike Dwyer Q-200 N3QP, St. Petersburg, FL

ED. NOTE: 1. Sometimes I goof, sometimes it's deliberate, but almost everything is printed eventually. 2. QUICKTALK is never meant to be an AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY type of publication. It is more of a builder's diary and as such is meant to appeal to an audience with a wide range of ability, background, experience and interests. Skip over the parts you don't like.


Dear Jim,

It has taken me awhile to read all the back issues of QUICKTALK you sent. What great reading it was. Right up there with PENTHOUSE forum, only a little more down to earth.

I cannot believe all of the broken Q-2's in the letter section and also all the trouble people have had with QAC. I've had nothing but good service when I've asked for it.

I don't understand the landing problems. Seems if you'd keep your head out and fly the plane to the ground it should work. But what am I to say, I've only flown a Q-2 once and had no trouble. I do make my living flying 5 days a week. Could make some difference, I guess.

Joe Underwood #2525, Guthrie, OK


Dear Jim,

I am in California to pick up parts for my Q-200 and return soon to complete it in New Zealand. Enjoy your publication immensely; compulsory reading for someone building.

Malcolm Dimberline, Nelson, New Zealand


QBA BUILDER ROSTER - At the end of each year our roster is as fat as it gets. Still available for $5.00, our roster now contains over 600 names, addresses and phone numbers of fellow QBA members. Now is the time to have a list of contacts to further discuss a creative idea or flight experience that you read about in QUICKTALK. $5.00


Hi Jim,

Rod Esterak of El Paso has gotten his Q-200 flying with some innovations you would probably like to know about (AHA, the Daddy of N45RE; my spies are EVERYWHERE! ED.)

My Dragonfly flies very well - no airframe, handling or control problems whatsoever. Unfortunately the HAPI 1835 with the POSA carb has been the problem. The intake tube is too short to allow a mixture to completely fill the manifold. The tube branches off towards the heads too soon. One side runs very rich, the other very lean. It requires modification or the Ellison Throttle Body carb, in my opinion. Other than that, I'm having fun!

Mike Quigley, El Paso, TX


QBA PATCHES - A limited number of patches of the QBA logo are available for $3.00 each. Size is 4-3/4" vert. x 4".


Jim,

RE: your item about Quickie complaints to EAA. I'm a life member of EAA and when I was working on the electrical system (Quickie, ED.), I wrote EAA a letter and told them I'd discovered a life-threatening problem in the electrical system (battery and ignition failure in flight). I asked them, without describing the problem, whether they were interested in the details. They never answered the letter and I never followed up.

Neal Current #399

Nice way to treat a life member, huh? ED.


Dear Jim,

Here's the twelve bucks. It's a great newsletter. Do keep up the good work.

Here's a very good method that local EZ, Quickie, etc. builders use to fill weave. I think it was devised by Dan Maher, our EAA chapter president. It's easy to put on, sands beautifully in less than an hour and is half the expense of dry micro: Equal parts of volume of Shell's EPON 828 resin with VERSAMID I-40. Add Q-cells (cheaper than glass balloons) to get the desired dryness. Most people use it a little heavier than thick cream. Apparently the 50/50 mix is not critical since it is used for fill and not for structural strength. Cost? About $25/gal. vs. $50 of Safe-T-Poxy.

Of other interest is that Dan Maher has designed and is flying a 4 place composite aircraft that cruises at 190 kts. on 180 hp. It is called "Velocity" and I believe it will be THE composite against which all others are measured in the future.

J. P. Stroud, Satellite Beach, FL


Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter, since my Q-2 has been flying for 2 years now, is to make contact with any and all builders/owners who have been flying their Q-2's through acrobatic maneuvers. I am relatively inexperienced in acrobatic flight and desire to converse with anyone who has experience with the Q-2 in inverted and unusual attitude flight.

Walter Marsh N812WB, Richmond, VA (804) 226-4433 work, (804) 276-7419 home.


Dear Jim,

I appreciated the letters from Mike Sullivan (QT 20), and Paul Yarnell (QT 18) about the flying ability and thinking needed to handle the Q-2, or for that matter, any airplane. The pilot must know the handling characteristics of any plane he flies (all of the pilot reports on the Quickie/Q-2/200 are very important in this regard. If this information is lacking, he must carefully develop techniques to discover how it behaves. This is very important for any homebuilt because each one could have some variation from those reported.

From reports I've read, I feel many builders assume that the ability to fly the completed project is almost guaranteed because of the intimate familiarity with the "beast". As the builder completes the plane, he should and must become very conscious about retraining and honing the necessary flying skills to protect himself and the plane. Mike's letter is a case in point. Two small books I would strongly recommend as mandatory reading are MOUNTAIN FLYING by Sparky Imeson and FLYING OUT OF DANGER by Avram Goldstein. Both are paperback, cost less than $10 and are available from Airguide Publication, 1207 Pine Ave., P O Box 1288, Long Beach, CA 90801. MOUNTAIN FLYING covers all aspects of flying and I consider it a "must" reference book.

As several have said already, taildragger time is a must and if you are a 100 hr. + pilot, 10 hours may do it. But don't let this scare anyone. Each builder spends much time preparing a jig for a layup. Similarly, each pilot should prepare himself and train his reflex actions to be ready for the flight. Like any computer game, the novice is terrible, but after only several hours, the score starts to run up. We ALL must prepare to prevent these accidents that are many times blamed incorrectly on the type of aircraft.

I believe that pilot capability was very much involved in the lawsuit against QAC. However, incorrect terminology may have caused the problem. If the person who sued QAC had bought the airplane from Cessna or Piper and had tried to do the same thing at high density altitude, the plane probably would have stalled also, but then most likely spun into the ground killing him. The point is that nothing will keep an airplane flying if the air density is too high [low? - ED.] or the airspeed is too low. Most standard planes will stall, but as soon as a wing drops, they'll spin. Testing has shown the Quickie/Q-2 to be spin free. Thus QAC probably meant to say that the plane would not STALL/SPIN. If it doesn't have the speed, it will lose altitude as well as any other plane as the wing loses the lift to maintain level flight.

In order for the pilot to have prevented that accident, he would have had to have enough flying experience to know that pulling back on the stick of a mushing aircraft will not stop the mushing. The stick would have had to go forward, held there, and the airspeed allowed to increase before the Quickie would have resumed flying. Because he was so low, it would have taken an almost instinctive reaction to do this.

I remember reading a report about a pilot of a light twin taking off from Palm Springs one summer morning. He had only climbed 10 feet by the time he had traveled 1 mile down the runway. It took him another 25 miles flying straight ahead to reach 250 feet. Obviously this pilot realized he had to keep his speed up by not pulling back on the stick and that the plane's stalling speed in any turn exceeded his actual speed. He had to maintain a straight heading in order to have any possible chance of saving himself. If he had tried to turn, crashed and somehow lived through it, I don't think the courts would have put the blame on the aircraft manufacturer. Remember, performance figures are for when the plane is flying under one set of conditions. It is the pilot's responsibility to know what the plane will or won't do when the conditions change. A vast majority of the time when a light twin crashes after an engine fails on takeoff pilot error is listed as the cause, not the manufacturer. I DON'T SEE HOW THIS ACCIDENT WAS ANY DIFFERENT.

If some want to prove this to themselves, take a Cessna 150 or any small, spin-certified trainer up to the highest altitude you can climb at 2200 rpm power (about 10,000'), then try to maintain altitude at an airspeed of 60 mph. Now try to get out of your situation without touching power or trading altitude for airspeed. You CAN'T. Take an instructor with you if you haven't ever demonstrated recovery from a spin.

S. Edward Neister #2836, New Durham, NH


Dear Jim,

I own Quickie N1V, and together with builder Ray Anderson, I have put 350 hrs. on it with the plastic float in the carb. I changed to a brass float because I had heard that the plastic ones were disorbing and coming apart. My first brass one broke with 50 hrs. on it and the second with 35. On breakage, the engine leans out but did not quit running. I went back to the plastic float and have 400 hrs. on it with no problems.

One week before Oshkosh, my engine block cracked between the engine mount bolt and the rear crankshaft bearing. I was lucky to land before I ran out of oil. I hope a loose engine mount bolt was the problem. The block had 300 hrs. on it.

I have had to grind the valves every 75 to 150 hrs. to keep the compression up. I have ordered the new Rotax 906, 2 cyl. 4 cycle engine which I hope to fly to OSH '86.

N1V now has a used Onan engine and 515 hrs. on the airframe with no problem. The Quickie is a dream to fly once you get it into the air.

Jim Schmitt N1V, Evansville, IN


Jim,

I parked my Quickie shortly after the 1983 Oshkosh fly-in. Engine problems too numerous to mention. I did get about 120 hrs. on it. Airframe handling great, just engine complaints. I am now on the edge of ordering a Rotax 477 with reduction gearing. Know anybody else?

Don Larson, Tigard, OR

ED. NOTE: Have I got great news for you! Read on.


BACK ISSUES - QUICKTALK - ALL 24 back issues of QUICKTALK are still available for $2.00 each ($2.50 foreign); includes postage. Four years of tips, ideas and experiences at your fingertips. Complete your collection or use it as an extra bonus if you decide to sell your project. $2.00 each.



You can order a PDF or printed copy of QuickTalk #24 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.