Login Form


From Sam Hoskins

I'm a student at Southern Illinois University Aviation Technology program. I'd like to invite ALL Quickie enthusiasts to a little air show we are holding on April 9 at S.I.U.'s airport in Carbondale. We are 90 mi. SW of St. Louis and 13 mi. from the Marion VOR at 275. Plenty of runway and tie downs. It would be a great excuse to have a builders/flyers get-together. I'd be happy to arrange a tour of the SIU Aviation Technology facility - even the composite shop! There are plenty of motels nearby and I can offer my limited floor space to those with sleeping bags and do what I can for local transportation. Call me! 618/549-3023.



By Sam Hoskins #2614

I would like to start by saying that I am NOT an instructor or a Q-200 expert. I have about 150 hours on my airplane, and these are some of the more important things that I have learned through my own positive and negative experiences, and they seem to work for me.

1. Keep the aircraft on the centerline!! The Q-2/Q200 is a very sensitive aircraft that will require all of the concentration that you have to muster. It is very important that you not get behind the plane at any time. If you get so far behind that you are even starting to swerve on the runway, you may have already lost it and a ground loop is soon to follow. Marv Getten and I have found that by concentrating on keeping the plane where it is supposed to be in the first place you will have a better chance of keeping it there. Back to the basics. This is where getting a thorough taildragger check out will be most helpful before making your first flights.

2. After touching down don't, don't, don't, apply brakes until you reach the end of your rollout (end of runway). I found that after a successful touchdown, I would have swerving problems as soon as I starting braking. With the brakes out at the end of the canard, the slightest difference in braking force will cause you to swerve, and at the higher speeds this can be instantaneous and hair-raising! My normal procedure now is to just let it rollout, slow down on its own, and concentrate on that centerline.

Since I'm using a handheld radio and both hands are already full, if the tower talks to me during the rollout phase, I don't acknowledge until I'm thoroughly slowed down or even clear of the runway. Occasionally the plane behind me will have to do a go around. That's OK. Nobody gets hurt in a go-around. I just pay attention to the task at hand, which is to land the airplane. Distractions can cause a loss of control faster than you might realize, and going backwards a bitch.

3. Make a personal visit to your local tower (if you have one) to let them know about any special handling you might need. This can be very helpful to all parties, especially during flight-testing, and they'll appreciate your visit. Let them know that you'll be much faster than those Cessna One Filthys or the Traumahawks and that you'll be running over them in the pattern. Also make them aware of the fact that you'll need more runway and will be making long rollouts.

4. Reverse Aileron Steering. This seems to occur at runway speeds of about 40 mph and higher. I believe that it is caused by the aileron in the "down" position creating more drag than the "up" aileron. So when you put in left aileron you steer to the right, and right aileron steers you to the left. Regardless of what causes it, it is there, and it is bass-ackwards to everything you have learned up to now and will take some getting used to.

When first encountered, it is quite unnerving and so for many of my first flights I kept the ailerons neutral and steered only with the rudder. This is fine when the wind is straight down the runway or in no winds, but when there is a strong crosswind (15 kts. @ 90 degrees) I need much more directional authority and my rudder isn't big enough by itself.

Here is the secret to countering this and using it to your advantage during normal landings and those high crosswind situations, and again I give credit to Marv Getten. First, eliminate the phrase or idea of "reverse steering" from your mind and vocabulary. It's too hard to think in my own mind to do the opposite of what I think I ought to do. Instead, say to yourself, "USING THE CONTROL STICK, STEER IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE AIRCRAFT IS HEADING". If you are taking off or landing and the airplane is starting to head into the bushes on your right, then steer to the RIGHT. If the crosswind is from the left and the plane weathervanes to the left, then steer into the LEFT. Rudder control remains normal. Try this in your taxi tests. I hope it helps.

5. Make a specialized checklist for your own airplane and USE IT!! Include brakes, speed brake, reflexor and canopy latching.

6. If you bounce a landing, instead of trying a second flare, add a little power to ease yourself back down to the runway. Otherwise you'll just keep on bouncing. The judicial application of a slight amount of power can clean up a bad landing and save a prop and canard. Of course you can always add a lot of power and go around.



1. I seemed to be flying with a lot of nose-down trim. After studying the situation, I decided that the sparrow strainers were set at too steep of an angle and were always pushing the elevator down, which would cause the nose to raise up, so I would have to feed in a lot of nose-down trim. This apparently results in a lot of unneeded drag.

Measuring the flat surfaces of the sparrow strainer in relation to the flat surface of the elevator revealed that it was set at 30 degrees. I then changed it to 25 degrees. The result is that the elevator now flies in more of a neutral position and all of that trim isn't required. I feel that I picked up some efficiency, but without a manifold pressure gauge I can't really tell.

Can anyone really describe the useful function of the sparrow strainers? I've heard several different explanations, none of which are satisfactory. Are they really needed, and why doesn't the GU airfoil need them?

2. Baffled by baffling? Not sure what it should look like? Go take a look at a C-150 or better yet, look at an Ercoupe with the 0-200 in it (but be aware that during the engine's lifetime someone may have removed some parts and not bothered to reinstall them). If you can, take pictures. Pay close attention how the cylinder baffles route air through the cylinder fins.

McFarland's adjustable sparrow strainers.



QAC didn't supply all the 0-200 baffles that are required, but I didn't realize this until I experienced cooling problems and took a look at some other engine installations. I received cylinder baffles for the cylinder barrels but not for cylinder heads. I've made several of these parts from scratch and it does help.

Engine oil cooling remains a problem for me on the 80+ degree days. I'm working on solving the problem with baffling rather than spending $200 or more on an oil cooler. For a drawing of how to make the cooling baffle that Scott Swing referred to in Q-TALK #5 look in the Tony Bingelis book "Firewall Forward" on page 131. His layout can be used as a rough draft, but be sure to take actual measurements. On page 127 Tony shows BOTH of the inner cylinder baffles that we need for cylinder head cooling. QAC only supplied the cylinder barrel baffle, not the cylinder HEAD baffle. I made this easy modification and it made a BIG difference in cylinder head temp.

3. Fuel System. The EAA says that one of the main causes of crashes in homebuilts is fuel related. I feel that the rinky-dink aluminum and plastic tubing and "fittings" as supplied by QAC are really bogus. I have had problems with minor leaks and fuel seepage from the beginning of flight-testing. I intend to convert my system to aircraft quality lines and hoses. Just as soon as I can afford it.

Also, please keep the fuel system as simple as possible, and use sight gauges whenever possible. I have seen a couple of "systems" of header tank fuel level indicators involving Rube Goldberg arrangements using red and green lights as indicators of fuel remaining. These systems will not keep a pilot informed of "trends" involving his fuel management and may wind up with header tanks severely contaminated with air. I think that having an electrical gauge in your header tank is really asking for trouble, especially in the event of an electrical failure.

Keep the fuel pump as close to the main tank as possible. My fuel pump is mounted on the lower portion of the header tank (per plans?) and at higher altitudes it seems to create a lot of bubbles in the line and maybe if it were closer to the main tank it would have less of a tendency to cavitate.

4. Exhaust System. Again as supplied by QAC, it isn't the greatest. The system as supplied actually contacts the vacuum pump in one spot, and the front of the cowling in another. Also if you go by the plans like I did, the gascolator and fuel line to the carburetor are scant inches away from the exhaust collector! Why didn't Sheehan put the exhaust collector on the other side so as to be away from the fuel system? A customized exhaust is on my list of "things to do".

5. Use DZUS fasteners on the cowling. I did this and I'm really glad I did! If I had to remove some 30 odd screws to pull the cowling, I'd be less likely to investigate "minor" problems with the engine. I used the small F-3 fastener, which are available in small quantities from Freeman Aviation, 26 Montgomery Drive, Griffin, GA 30223. 404/227-2602. (These people have a swell hardware catalog).

6. What is the engine doing? I hope to install a manifold gauge someday, then I'll have a better idea of what's going on in there.

7. Electrical supply. That dinky little alternator from B&C just isn't big enough to run a practical cross-country airplane. If you want to run strobes, nav lights, fuel pump, radio, and Loran, you are going to need a bigger alternator. And so am I.

8. Hand propping. I am getting along with hand propping just fine and here is how I do it: Starting with engine cold. Mags OFF. Mixture rich, throttle cracked. Pull prop until engine oil loosened. Prime. Give prop 2 pulls. Mags ON. Check brake. Starts next pull. * Starting with engine HOT. Mags off. Pull mixture full lean. Push throttle full in. Pull prop about 6-10 times. Throttle cracked, mixture full rich. Check brakes. Mags ON. Should start next pull.

I have my prop set at rest in the vertical position on the engine compression stroke, so the mags fire when the prop reaches the horizontal position. When I prop my plane, I stand slightly to the left of the engine and grasp the lower blade with my right hand. When I give a pull, I am stepping away and further to the left. This takes my entire body AWAY from the prop. I feel safer than standing in front of the engine and prop.

9. Rudder. I feel that the Q-200 could use some more rudder authority in strong crosswinds. I wonder if there would be any detrimental effect if I were to extend the length of the rudder to the top of the tail fin?

10. Aileron Trim. I don't have it and I wished I did. When taking passengers up for rides you really do need it. I have seen a couple of different types but only detail of John Derr's shown in Q-Talk #6. His basic principal looks OK but I'd say that his system will need some more "arm" to have enough authority. I would like to rig up some type of system so that I may adjust the length of one of the elevator torque tubes while in flight. A guy at Oshkosh had one, but he didn't respond to my letter of inquiry to tell me how he did it. Liability fright I guess.

11. Buying an engine. True confessions here; I paid just about as much for an 0-200 as is possible without buying a brand new engine. I purchased a run-out engine from an air salvage company and had it majored (first class shop), all of which brought me into the $6,000 range! If I was to do it over again, early on in the building stage I would buy a Cessna 150 complete with a mid-time engine, take the wings off and keep it in or near my shop.

A good C-150 will generally run you about $5-7,000 and will provide many, many advantages other than just providing you with an engine. First, you will have in your possession another airplane to look at when you say to yourself, "I wonder how this widget is supposed to go in here"? Having this old airplane would provide you with answers to what good construction practices are, what type of fittings should be used, and how do you hook this gizmo to that do-hickey? You will also have a terrific supply of little odds and ends that cost so much from the catalogs. Kind of like having your own fly-market. If I had gone this route I could have obtained this stuff which I paid good money for: Nav lights, Vacuum pump, Engine baffling, Gascolator and associated fuel fittings, Artificial Horizon, Directional Gyro, the list just goes on and on. Even radios!

Finally, after stripping everything off the aircraft, a guy could sell the remaining wings, fuselage, prop, landing gear, cowling, etc. for parts and probably recoup a large part of his investment! We get too smart - too late!



From Charlie Belshe

My Q-2 is in the shop while I fix some things that have bothered me for years. Except for the Hot-Rod-Factor I enjoyed flying my Revmaster but I want something to show for this time in the shop and I'm looking for an 0-200. I don't plan to change the old canard since the vortex generators have improved its performance. If I make the engine switch, I'll keep you up to date.


From Robert Gillespie

My Q-2 now has 185 hours on it and other than beefing up the tailspring, I can't fault the airframe. The Revmaster has given me consistent problems with the starter (Bendix hanging up on shaft) had to remove engine to replace shaft, and am still having problems. After 100 hrs., I noticed a squeak in the engine. I found the magneto impulse couplings dry as a bone (after again removing the engine). Revmaster had the brass to tell me they should never have been lubricated. Can you believe those guys? I have had continuous problems with valves and heads. 40 hrs. on a new motor found me with a stuck valve. For a "nice" price, Revmaster sold me new hi-performance heads and after 50 hrs. I found cracks between intake and exhaust. Revmaster said that was OK and to go ahead and fly with the cracks. I can't believe those guys. I told them I wanted a new head and they did replace it after I waited 8 weeks for their new supply to come in.

A major problem: After 12 hrs flying, my throttle stuck on approach to the airport. I thought it was all over but the crash. I fooled around with the throttle for a few anxious moments and got enough power out of it to make the field and a good landing. I took the carb off and found one of the main baffle spring screws had come out and jammed between the carburetor and baffle. Two other screws in the same area were loose also. I removed and Loctited all screws. Revmaster came out a month later with a new spring and instructions to replace it and Loctite all screws (be sure there was nothing wrong with the spring!).

I must warn all Q-2 pilots to be sure and Loctite all screws as I mentioned in the carb, and be sure and lubricate the magneto after 100 hours or your day will be spoiled.

N85BJ weighs 628 lbs. and cruises at 145 IAS. I love to fly it and it does perform well, but I wish I had a more reliable engine.

ED. NOTE: What I'm waiting for now are some letters of upset that I am printing bad news about the Revmaster engine (like I got when we had complaints about QAC). C'mon now, let's hear from all you bubbly, enthusiastic Revmaster defenders. Anybody wanna drop the newsletter because we're being negative here??? Meanwhile...

Lenny Padios flew his new Revmaster Q-2 to Oshkosh last year then had an almost death-defying return when he passed through the high, hot southwestern US. His engine seemed sick, and indeed, he found cracked heads, lousy valves and seating (he sent me a videotape showing the problem). Naturally Revmaster seemed to be surprised to hear it, and after a great deal of hassling Lenny gave up and now has an 0-200 installed up front. He can tell you an interesting story: Lenny Padios (213) 450-6097.

Ted Fox recently visited Springfield, MO, the secret hideaway of five (5) Revmaster powered Tri-Q's (and incidentally, all 5 have canards WITHOUT the anhedral removed and all are doing just fine). Ted tells me that the guys didn't have major complaints but that they say they have to tinker with the engines more than they'd like to, and they think the planes are underpowered.


From Brian Bulaw, UT

I have a Q-2 Turbo, registration N24H, with about 2 hours on it. So far I haven't been able to develop full power because of an apparent fuel starvation problem at power settings above 22 inches. Pattern work has been without incident so far. I'm using differential hand brakes and have changed the tailwheel pivot angle.


From Rand Kriech, CA

Fuel leaks have been a real problem for me and some other builders. Therefore I suggest a number of alternatives:

1. Plumb fuel tanks using rigid aluminum tube, not soft.

2. Upgrade to 3/8".

3. Adapt finger strainer system from Aircraft Spruce.

4. Seal lines with gas line sealant.


E-TIP (Encouragement)

All the setbacks will be worth it once you have your Q-2 in the air. I suppose I'm what you call a low time pilot with 125 hrs. TT, of which 75 have been in my Q-2. It can be a challenge at times, but it is also one of the greatest legal thrills of all time. I doubt I will ever again be able to re-live the feeling of that initial test flight. So...hang in there, the rewards are sure to come!



From Rick Lavigne - Poughkeepsie, NY (914) 452-5984

I don't have all the parts for my Tri-Q200, but my real concern is in the prop extension. Can someone help me out with this one...maybe do a detailed drawing of the extension so I can have one made?

I'd be willing to make 0-200 cowlings if there was enough interest. Please call if interested.


From John Groff, NJ

Contrary to what some builders have said, a pull-starter Continental can be made to work on a Q-2. I did it by extending the top of the mag box to the right about 5 inches and reinforcing the firewall inboard of the motor mount with a triangular gusset.


Igor Mokrys, Calgary

The building season is over for another year and it is time for a recap. My garage now sports a basic Q2000 fuselage with a trimmed fuel tank and a cutout canopy, as well as the main wing and the NASA canard made previously (the number refers to the year in which I am likely to finish the project). All the tips from Quicktalks came in handy and some of them were applied successfully. Needless to say, the inspirational input derived from your 'preaching' played an important part too. I am convinced, Jim, that you can put Billy Graham to shame any time, any place, hands down. And he is good! I will venture to make comments in a point form to save space:

1. Apart from being sketchy and wish-washy, the Q2 plans are a recipe for a disaster. Just reading them stirs up the darker side of human nature. There is surely something good about them but I would be hard pressed to think of anything. Take for instance the location of the gas tank water relief valve (CAV-100, figure on p. 14-3). The plans call for FS46 ignoring the fact that, in a parked Q2, the water would collect at the trailing edge of the tank (approx. FS58). This is where the valve should be located in a .25 in. depression - no aluminum screen, no flox barrier, no nothing (I still do not understand how Sheehan makes the water jump over the flox into the hollow without a divining rod). A separate concavity may then be located near the middle of the tank (at say FS 45 to 47) containing the epoxied tea strainer and gas line.

2. Fuel tank baffles - the longitudinal baffles (2) can be made out of the piece left over from the original aft canopy bulkhead adapted for the forward hinge canopy.

3. Fuel tank tunnel (Q-Talk #3 and 4, p. 17) - a pressure equalizing connection at the top of the tunnel may be required to prevent the formation of a large air bubble in one half of the tank.

4. 220 mph cruise on 116*.75 = 87HP? The guy is dreaming in Technicolor.

5. Fuselage assembly - I must have received each quarter-panel from a different set of molds as the fit was atrocious. It was nevertheless possible to end up with a good fit and here are some thoughts on how it can be done:

Finish the front section as per plans but pre-fit the tank with baffles in it first and leave out the tapes on the top half of FS94. If required, use braces to open up the bottom front quarter-panel to match the 'horizontal' split line of the corresponding top panel. This way the canopy, once cut out, will fit back in snug. Apply micro, sand the joint smooth and glass 2 BID over it as per plans. Reinforce both the inside rear quarter-sections with 1 UNI (Q2PC28 in #22 Newsletter; mine was approx. 11x55 each) before putting in the undersize bulkheads and, while you are at it, install the 3/16 in Nylaflow tubing in FS175 (p.14-1 plans). Micro, sand and glass as before inside and out (gosh, I almost saw the headlines in the local paper: "Man dies wedged in the tailcone of his plane"). Now comes the tricky part. Unless you wish to end up with an out-of-rig mongrel, the tail section must be properly attached to the front. There is a large number of ways to do this but only one of them is correct. Once the fuselage is taken off the jigging table, there is virtually no way of telling if, and how much, it is out of rig - only the telltale handling problems will remain.

Begin by throwing away the plans. You will not need them. After all, they have been writt... wrot... rotten by someone, who had, occasionally and in a hazy distance, seen others building a Q2 but never quite figured out how they did it.

Recheck the horizontal adjustment of your 17 ft long jig table, paying a particular attention to the longitudinal centerline drawn on the top of it. A string threaded through the 2-inch holes in the female jigging templates will help to achieve this. Then position the joint front half-fuselage onto the templates, making sure that a) it is leveled laterally (use WL15 at the firewall as a reference); b) the center of firewall is exactly above the jig table centerline; and c) the center of the fuselage at the FS100 slanting split line is again exactly above the jig table centerline (use WL15 as a reference). A plumb line, good tape and lots of patience, are the ingredients for success here. Once satisfied with the jigging, Bondo the front section solid to the templates. Ignoring the non-uniformity of the gap completely, position the cone section on the templates so that a) the center of the cone at FS200 is exactly above the jig table centerline; b) the center of the cone at FS200 is below the WL15 (use at least .25 in ID plastic tubing (20+ft long) to eliminate capillarity effect) c) the cone fits flush with the front fuselage section along at least a part of the circumference, e.g. along the top. A great help in accomplishing this task is the set of 'fingers' proposed in Quicktalk #26, p. 9. Next on the agenda is to micro, sand and glass (2 BID) over the part of the joint where the fit is best. In my case it was from WL15 to WL 15 along the top, your case may be different. When cured solid (24-48 hours), turn the complete fuselage over and repeat the procedure for another section that fits well, e.g. the bottom. You may, as I did, end up with two ugly bulges on either side, the size of which would make Dolly Parton look like Joan Rivers. Don't despair! Make several parallel horizontal cuts; force the bulges in, micro and sand (I got this one from Liz Taylor). It can be done by turning the fuselage on its side and making use of some weights. The surface should always be near perfect before glass. Laminate 2 BID over the horizontal cuts on both the inside and outside and continue as per Quicktalk tip above.

After umpteen hours, the fuselage looks very smooth along the split line, its crucial rigging statistics are spot on, but frankly Jim, I am breaking into a cold sweat just writing about it. No wonder they never mentioned them bulges in their flamboyantly rhetorical ads!!

6. Epoxy tests - There have been some vague reports in the past on gas tanks being dissolved by auto gas (mogas), while others have had no problems using it for years. As I may consider using auto gas myself, I decided to get some hard 'guideline' numbers on the weight loss due to leaching of unreacted, low molecular weight components out of Safe-T-Poxy at 20?C. For this purpose I prepared four discs from a six BID layup. The resin/hardener was mixed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Two of them were cured at ambient temperature not exceeding 35?C, while the other two were post-cured for 24 hours in an air oven set at 100?C. Two types of solvent were chosen - regular unleaded auto gas and toluene. Toluene is a strong aromatic solvent with octane number 112, for which reason it is one of the major ingredients refineries nowadays add to the C5 - C8 mixture of aliphatic hydrocarbons (i.e. in place of tetraethyl lead that was turning our kids and politicians into idiots). This lowers the tendency of the mixture to detonate on burning. Pure toluene therefore represents the worst-case situation as the C5 - C8 hydrocarbons constitute a comparatively poor solvent. The results may be summarized as follows:


Disc Cure/Solvent
Wt. Gain/Loss
Wt. (g)
Wt. (g)


The final weight was obtained by weighing the samples to a constant weight (i.e. by in turn drying them at 35?C and weighing them until the difference between two consecutive weightings was negligible - this took about 10 days). The results indicate that, in the first 7 months of leaching, there is approx. 0.4% weight loss for the room temperature cured samples, while 100?C post-cured sample 'gain' about .05%. This apparent weight gain can be attributed to an incomplete desorption of gasoline and toluene, respectively, during the 10 day drying period. One may therefore speculate that after an indefinitely long drying time the weight gain would be reduced to zero and the results corrected for this effect are given in the last column. I would expect the rate of leaching to slow down from now on, but just to make sure; I put the discs back into their respective solvents. For this reason I have not attempted to test the mechanical properties. All in all, there is appreciable weight loss with the 35?C cured epoxy, particularly in view of the fact that the weight of the discs also includes the weight of the glass cloth.

7. Liquid cooled 0-200(IOL-200) - very impressive specs and it would fit into the airframe, but it is not in production. If the car industry had such inertia, we would be still driving a Ford Model T. And, of course, the Tin Lizzie would be black.


From Jay Scheevel

One recent Q-tip concerned me. You said that 5 & 10 store variety modeling clay (Plasticine) is useful to hold things in place prior to bonding. In conversations with a couple of polymer chemists that I've come in contact with (no allergic reaction!), they have stressed the importance of keeping ALL oily substances out of contact with epoxy bonded surfaces. Oils are not miscible with epoxy resins and leave microscopically thin layers of oil film, virtually destroying a bond. Plasticine clays are a mixture of ordinary potters clay with a glycerin and mineral oil base (that's why they don't dry out like potter's clay). Fold a paper towel around a small piece of Plasticine then lean on it with your palm. Look at how much fluid is absorbed by the towel.

If one was not able to remove all traces of Plasticine, especially in a hard to see/reach area, it would severely compromise the strength of the bonded structure. I would avoid using the stuff or be sure to THOROUGHLY clean the area with acetone or similar solvent before proceeding.

I have found that the best method of holding things in place is to use small scraps of wood and a hot glue gun, as this is solid, stable and the cooled glue can usually be pulled off easily.

ED. NOTE: Good advice, Jay. Sometimes I leave out what seems obvious, but that's not a good idea. I DO clean up after the clay, and my bonds, some in high pressures areas, show no signs of failing. Except for careless, self-inflicted spot burns, hot glue guns are just nifty.


From Dale Johnson, OH

My Q-2 has been in a state of hibernation in my cold-storage garage. I took a trip to Delaware and stopped at Somerset, PA to visit the folks at Custom Composites. Bunch of nice folks.

Also I stopped in Avondale, PA and visited the New Wave Aircraft Co, also nice folks. They recommended a larger rudder area to me. They did it for a man's Q-2 and he had a lot more control on the ground and in crosswind landings. It looked like this and was counterbalanced:



ED. NOTE: Since you mention Custom Composites, an advertiser here, what follows are excerpts from a letter written to them by Lenny Padios:


Dear Tom and Bill,

I am writing this letter to both of you in the form of a complaint...First of all and most important, I feel I and many others have been gouged on your pricing of your retro-fit parts for the Q-200...All of the items listed on the sheet I enclosed on your prices were taken right out of the Aircraft Spruce catalog, and all you did was better than double the list price, with the exception of the carb adapter and inlet air adapter which I feel $70 for the both is way out of line since you only use about 1 square foot of material to make. You didn't even have to stock those items, you just had them mailed out by them and you reaped your price increase. I'm not against anyone making an honest profit, but to flat out gouge the consumer like you have is way out of line, and as a business practice I feel is unethical...Of my second complaint, I ordered the kit 3 months ago and paid for it up front and was told that I would have the completed kit within 30 days!! So where are the remaining parts?...I feel if you don't do something you will only hurt an already hurting market and further give it a bad name not to say of your own company...A copy of this letter will be going to QBA and SPORT AVIATION...

Lenny attached some price comparisons:

1 Heat Muffler
$ 76.00
2 Mount Washers
1 SN4 Spinner
8 530740 Bushings
4 628556-16 Hose
(5 more items showed a similar price trend, ED.)


ED. NOTE: It is basic to the American free enterprise system that a man can charge for his goods whatever the traffic will bear. He usually doesn't (aircraft parts, and prices set by government contractors being sometimes outrageous exceptions). We certainly don't want to see a good company go out of business (and my best information, so far, from you guys is that this is a good company); on the other hand we don't want QBAers getting 1 part for the price of 2 either (lousy deal). Frankly, if I was in this deal I would be hotter than the hinges of hell. What would REALLY get me double broiled would be that I'd consider myself a lazy sap for not knowing the market beforehand. As an example, today I got a J.C. Whitney catalog advertising a $2.99 pop riveter that I paid $12 for several years ago. I can tell you I'm steamed...but more at myself than anyone else.

Before I had a chance to call Custom Composites, Bill Forrest called me first (good businessman). Here's their side: CCC got into supplying Q-200 retrofit components after hearing numerous builders hollering for help. Less some common bolts etc., they priced their package at $1995 vs. a '85 QAC dealer price of $1900. Individually, their non-package price adds up to $2380. Despite the hollering, and after investing the cash for an inventory, CCC found that enough business was not there. Bill says that if they have a retrofit package under one roof, it has to make a profit otherwise, handling it detracts from the other business they need to do. Lenny picked out the most glaring examples in the list he sent, said Bill. If Lenny returns his parts in the condition he received them, CCC will send a full refund. Bill is sending QBA his price list for the whole retro for my review (if it gets here before I go to the printer, I'll say more, otherwise, next issue).

Here are some facts of life. A Q-2 built from plans only is about half the cost of a kit that Sheehan had to assemble and negotiate prices for. His time will cost you! Same goes for CCC and we all would agree. But, how much profit will we allow the "producer"? That's the bone of contention. Fact of life: it's none of our damn business how they charge what they do. However, we can cast a vote by placing an order or not, and maybe that's why CCC didn't see many orders. I dunno. QBA's role is to help you become an informed "voter"...and unless and until we hear they are dirty scoundrels, we will continue to accept their ads. And...we will continue to accept letters like Lenny's.



Bob Malechek had an experience that got my gears turning. One bright but gusty day he took his Q-200 for a ride. Winds were strong from the west-northwest as he made his approach to land on the 5,000' N-S runway. He hit a wind shear on final and went down 300' then immediately back up. He was wide-awake now. Set up into the almost 90 degree crosswind with a wing low and tracking straight up the runway, he started easing her down. At 5 feet off he was suddenly slammed down, sprung back up and down again. The second bounce broke his tailspring and lucky for him he didn't apply power for a go-around (as he mentally warned himself to do long ago) because both rudder pedals went to the floor, limp. His plane weather-cocked into the wind and went off the runway and was heading for the bushes when Bob applied a finger full of his differential braking, straightened the bird out and brought it to a safe stop. We can assume it was a heart-pounding stop.

This is a carefully built, beautifully finished and carefully tested aircraft. This was the first incident in over 120 hours of operation. How cum?

We should all know by now that Burt Rutan was intimately involved in the design of the Quickie but NOT in the Q-2. (Years back I heard a story from reliable sources at Mojave that after the Q-2 was introduced, Burt went to QAC demanding a royalty for this knock-off design. A deal was set, but then Burt went back some time later demanding to get out of the deal. He thought better of it; something must've bothered him. What?) I have always suspected that Rutan would NOT have designed the Q-2 as we got it. A two-place was NOT a simple matter of puffing out the fuselage and pumping up the engine. A lot of subtle items needed attention and Burt was the only authority on these weird configurations. This Malechek incident begins to confirm my suspicions. Here's why:

Let's focus in on the design work at the tail of the Q-2 (and 200). Essentially stock Quickie. Quite adequate for the Quickie (no excessive tailspring breaks or numerous ground handling complaints). NOT adequate for the bigger Q's. God forbid I should ever say there were flaws in the Q-2 design, I'd offend Gene and probably get some letters. So let's just talk about the "improvements" that have been enhancing our "weak pilot skills" (it's us not the plane, right...and this is ONLY at the tail of the aircraft, mind you. Next time maybe I'll review the much-heralded Revmaster 2100DQ on the front end!).


1. GROUND ANGLE OF ATTACK. It is well known now that the tailspring/tailwheel must be installed so that the plane sits on the ground at 7.5 degrees, + or - maybe half a degree. For an amateur built airplane, this isn't such an amateur tolerance. It took quite a long time and a bunch of broken airplanes before this requirement was revealed to us. If you want a surprise, take a look at the Oshkosh Q-2 flight line and see the highly divergent configurations that builders have had to use to get 7.5 degrees. Almost no 2 are alike, and they don't look like the plans.



2. TAILWHEEL PIVOT POINT. If you build as per plans, the angled pivot bolt allows the tailwheel to tilt over into the turn and even "lock" into that position in a tight turn. Solution: cut and re-weld so the pivot bolt is perpendicular to the ground, thus keeping the tailwheel that way also. Was this ever officially "blessed" by QAC?

3. DORSAL REINFORCEMENT. Again, after many broken airplanes, it was finally recommended by QAC that a 5"x40" ply of UNI be added from the base of the tailfin and up the back of the airplane. This looks like a weak area to an amateur. Go figure why it wouldn't look that way to an aero-engineer.



4. TAILSPRING. I wish I had a dollar ($12 from AS&S) for every one of these that broke. Several guys have got fed up and are finally running with 4130 steel tube. Some, foreseeing the inevitable, have contrived solutions that allow quick replacement of broken tailsprings. I suggested long ago that we consider the oval shaped Dragonfly tailspring, and finally someone did. Don Short of OK has been operating with one for 10 hours now and he's pleased. He says the oval shape resists side loads better and his tail doesn't seem to "sashay" around back there as much after landing.

5. CONTROL CABLE TAUTNESS. Spring is the problem with the tailspring! In the air, rudder/tailwheel control cables are tight, but when the tail touches down, the spring bends and the cables naturally slacken...at 60 mph when you need all the control you can get, instantaneously. Dave Withington has a worthwhile but unflown fix for this (I hope my photos come cut). Every builder needs to give this area more thought.

6. TAILWHEEL. Several builders have switched from the hard rubber R&K tailwheel to the fatter, softer one. They report less swinging of the tail on landing. This is attributed to the rudder gripping the pavement better.

7. RUDDER. Increased rudder area has been tried by some and talked to death by others. Don Ismari gave us a flight report and said he couldn't tell if it helped or not. We need more flight reports on this.

8. ULTIMATE SOLUTION. All these "improvements" to the originally perfect design have been forsaken by a certain breed of intelligent builder in favor of the ultimate fix - the Tri-Q. Less macho required.

The fact that the Quickie experienced very little of the above litany of "improvements" leads me to believe it was designed by a very smart guy. The Q-2 seems to have been designed by a guy who only THOUGHT he was smart (and didn't do a very good job of copying).

And finally....STOP....imagine for a silent moment that you were Bob Malechek and that you poured on the power at the second bounce just before the rudder pedals went slack. What do you think your chances are for a survivable go-around?



From Norm Howell

(ED. NOTE: Howell's world record, now engineless Quickie is somewhere in the western U.S., on a trailer, following Norm to yet another Air Force posting. J. P. Stroud bought the Onan; Norm bought a Rotax.)

For my Onan, I bought a sealed battery from INAV that eliminates the need for an overboard vent. It is a PowerSonic 12V weighing 5.29 lbs. and is 5.94"Lx2.56"Wx4.06"H. It works well, can be mounted in any position and costs $40 (ooof!). I have been religious about not mistreating the battery (charge it the night before, avoid long idle periods, etc.) and have avoided the potential problems of degraded battery life so well documented by Neal Current in QT #2 & 3.

I had radio noise in my Terra TX-720 that could not be isolated electrically. One day I noticed that if I held onto the radio to dampen in-flight vibrations the noise in the received transmissions went away. I wrapped some foam canopy seal tape around the front of the radio and jammed it back into its tray. Result: much clearer transmission and reception.

Onan Quickie pilots should review the climb formulas published by Will Hubin in QT 21, and apply the lesson he pointed out in reverse! A VERY SMALL decrease in the power delivered by the prop to the air can mean a GREAT difference in climb rate. Case in point: I had my Q on display at Vance AFB, OK. My climbout on the way to Vance was a normal 200-300 fpm. During the show, I put some stickers about the size of a large business car on the prop to promote an upcoming air show. I neglected to take these off, and leaving Vance under identical weather conditions I got a surprise. Takeoff roll was 4,000' and I was only 50' in the air at the end of a 6,000' runway! The stickers were separating and the disturbed flow was robbing me of about 3-4 hp. I should have aborted, but I couldn't believe what was happening. After a few minutes the climb rate and cruise slowly returned to normal. My heart rate did not. The Onan has so little excess power that any condition that is not optimal (valve leaks, gasket blowout, rain/bugs, prop disturbance, low battery, fouled plug, carb ice) can easily take you from 400 fpm. climb to nuthin. It won't be long before I too go with the ring-a-ding-ding boys flying with Rotaxes.


From Dennis Clark, GA

I've owned my Quickie kit for about 2 years now and have canard, wing and fuselage finished. I spent the extra $600 for the carbon spar canard before the company folded. Anyone else flying with it?

A recoil starter is being added, inspired by Bob Benenati, the Quickie dealer in Miami, FL. Has anyone experimented with the ignition-timing advance on the Onan? Most engines run at least 30 degrees advance because with any less they develop less power and run hotter. I've been thinking of taking the timing off the crankshaft using electronic ignition with the advance controlled by the governor mechanism. Zero degrees advance for start and experimenting with maximum advance being sure to avoid "pinging". Any suggestions?


From David Kirby, P. O. Box 67, Burkeville, TX 75932

I would certainly appreciate hearing from anyone who could elaborate on combining the large tire option with the LS-1 canard on the Quickie single place.

ED. NOTE: There are only 3 guys who actively report building the Quickie LS-1 canard. None are flying unless someone has bought the late Bob McFarland's Quickie. It successfully flew with that canard.


From Terry Crouch, IA

The Quickie LS-1 canard plans from QAC will give you a good laugh. I'm waiting for warmer weather to finish mine and here is some other Quickie LS-1 info that I obtained from Gene Sheehan:

1. Canard should have 1 ply BID false ribs at BL10 just like the old canard.

2. Wheel pants glass 2 ply UNI at 45 degrees and 1 ply UNI spanwise like the Q-2.

3. You may flatten top of canard center section up to 1 inch.

4. You will have to notch the center front of the canard for motor mount clearance.

5. Elevator travel limits: up 15 degrees, down 23 degrees.



I had to modify my jigging blocks to keep all my core water lines level. Also, spars are slightly bowed, so I turned mine so that they were at least bowed in the same direction.


From J. P. Stroud, FL

Quickie 406JP has about 370 hours on her and here's an update:

PROPS: I have tried quite a few and I believe the Great American is a quality product. My experience and that of 27 other homebuilts at Merritt Island seem to say that the GA prop gives higher static rpm on the ground (about 250 rpm) and only a 300-rpm increase at redline. That is almost a constant speed prop. It's expensive, quality built and worth it, I believe.

ENGINE: I still opt for the underpowered Onan. Yes, filter the gas twice and change the filters regularly. As you fly the bird, learn to "feel" the normal compression stroke as you start her. There is a very insidious tendency for the compression to slowly decrease. It may take only 100 hrs. of running on a reconditioned engine before one MUST check the valves and have them ground. At the same time, check for warped heads and proper gasket sealing.

VORTEX GENERATORS: A must! Install them. Sure it's going to cost you 5 mph cruise, but it could save your life. The Quickie without them is a dangerous bird if you encounter even light rain. Vortex generators will get you out of showers safely.

FLYING TECHNIQUES: I feel it's dumb to take off with full aft stick. Use normal "slightly aft of neutral" stick to become airborne. Then if you hit some shear you'll have something left to fly you out of it. Plan for that very flat angle of climb! It's part of the Quickie. Don't fly on "bad" days (crosswinds above your ability, in rain, at high density altitudes, etc...). On landing, if runway length supports it, use 80 mph on final so you can make the field if the engine quits. On 3,000' or less, I use published approach speed with a little bit of power.

BATTERY: Change the darn thing every year whether you need to or not.

Bottom line: The Quickie is a ball to fly. Just treat it with respect.



From Marvin and Jerry Homsley, AR

We bought our Quickie from its second owner. We fly the plane very regularly and have performed maintenance on it for 5 or 6 years now, so we have some good experience on maintaining the Onan engine which everyone seems to be so afraid of.

Yes, we have some trouble with the Onan, but I still consider it to be as reliable as any other non-aircraft engine. Yes, it's underpowered, but you get to know its limitations and learn to live with them...you just learn to use a little finesse when flying instead of relying on brute power.

At 200 hours, our Onan started quitting in cruise for no apparent reason. It would quit cold then restart itself and run just fine. We changed EVERYTHING on the outside of the engine, one item at a time, and continued to have the problem for 30-40 more hours. Finally, quite by accident, we found the positive wire to the coil was completely broken and only some of the wire insulation was keeping the thing in place. We put a new terminal end on the wire and it began running just fine. You can't blame the engine.

You can really criticize the Onan for this one though: At 300 hours there was a definite loss of power, which we traced to a blown head gasket. No big deal, but WHY did it blow? A new head gasket blew in a couple hours so I looked closely and found that the next gasket could not lie flat on the engine. Around the base of every stud was a slightly raised portion of metal. My solution was too simple: I simply drilled out the holes in the gasket until it WOULD lay flat. This time both gaskets blew almost immediately. When the Onan blows a head gasket in flight, the engine will continue to run, but at far reduced power...and you never had excess power to begin with.

Well, we finally got to looking around and finally fixed it right. We found warped heads, which we had machined down .010 to make them flat again. We also found all the studs around the exhaust valve had pulled loose so we were not really torquing the heads properly. To fix this, we took out all the studs machined off the excess metal at the stud bases and installed a Heli-Coil in every stud around the exhaust valves. Now we were faced with the possibility of too high a compression since we'd taken metal off both the heads and the engine itself. We decided to go back to stock 18 hp heads to avoid having too much compression. After several more hours on it, everything seems find and the studs are not pulling out.

We are now regularly using an automotive-type compression gauge to monitor the engine for power loss. We'd like more power, but our Onan went 300 hrs. before it needed our fix and so far none of the alternative engines has done that.


From Dick Pettit, OH

I still haven't felt confident enough to undertake a long cross country in my Quickie and here's why. Several weeks ago I started on a short flight of 40 miles over hilly terrain. About 5 minutes out at 1800 ft. AGL, one cylinder cut out with no warning. I made an abrupt 180, nursed it along at 80 mph., and started looking with a critical eye at all the farm fields. I was losing approximately 200 fpm but I arrived at the end of the runway with a few feet to spare. A quick examination showed one of the snap leads on one spark plug had broken off due to flexing against the cowling. I have reworked the leads and have devised a way to safety-wire the plug boot to the top of the cylinder to eliminate flexing.

Aside from that little thrill, it is a joy to fly. The battery is kept in good condition in winter and infrequent flying by hooking up a 1/2 amp motorcycle charger to it and using a household timer to limit the charge to about a half hour a day. Use one of the little quick disconnects that come with the charger.


From Martin Burns, Scotland

Thank you for the newsletter. It is vital to us on this side of the Atlantic as our only source of information on the Quickie world. There are only 2 Quickies flying in Britain besides my own, though several more are still building.

My Quickie, G-BKSE, has now been flying for almost 3 years but has accumulated only 78 hours. This is partly due to terrible weather and partly losing a summer due to major surgery on the Onan. The power had been falling for some time, so that straight and level flight required nearly full throttle, and I had just managed my first distinctly frightening landing in the rain when I found that the engine had ejected most of its oil through the front main bearing seal. The problem was a stuck piston wing and the cure involved cylinder reboring .04 oversize, new pistons, conn rods, and main bearings, which had all been worn by the iron circulating in the oil. The fact that the engine did not stop running shows that it is robust.

The aeroplane itself is a delight to fly and very docile to land. We built it fairly light at 280 lb. empty and so it will climb at 400 fpm, although only after fitting a locally made prop with a REAL 27" pitch unlike the 27" Cowley which was really 30". After fitting the vortex generators at 10 degrees, it is tolerant of all but really heavy rain. Last year I flew it to Cranfield (our version of Oshkosh), but the vibration from the Onan made the 600 mile round trip something of an ordeal. This, combined with the low power of the Onan, made me decide to fit a Rotax 447. Ed Miller and Gerry Wardell have kindly sent me information on their installations (thanks to QBA).

Has anyone fitted a belly board to a Quickie? It would be nice to steepen the approach to short fields. I anticipate that this may be more of a problem with the higher idle thrust of the Rotax.



From Dick Grosvenor, RI

Quickie 3774X with the Kawasaki 440A engine is still flying, but now with ram air to the carb. This seems a little better but not really a noticeable change in performance. I worry about the CDI ignition and wonder if 2 could be hitched up as a redundant system? It just looks like a weak spot to me.

The plane now flies with a 9 gallon aluminum gas tank that gives it a 3" belly. I would like some spare parts for the Spitfire transmission I bought from Advanced Engine Design before they went out of business. Can anyone help me out on this? 126 Carroll Ave, Newport, RI 02840 - 401/846-3052.


From Tony Wahlberg, England

Some time ago I phoned Harold Little who gave me the benefit of his knowledge on balancing the Onan engine. Clearly there is a lot of "black art" when it comes to balancing, especially the Onan. I took my crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods, flywheel and prop extension to my local experts and they tried to explain what goes on: Before balancing a crankshaft, a weight must be added to the crankpin to simulate a mass equal to the mass which should be built into the crankshaft on the opposite side. If the correct weight is added before balancing, then after balancing the engine will run without vibration. In theory, this weight must equal all the rotating weight of the connecting rod, i.e. the big end, and half the reciprocating weight of the rod and piston. In practice, it is not so simple. The opposing forces of the reciprocating parts and of the stationary parts (the rest of the engine and frame) affect each other. An "overbalance" above 50% of the weight of the reciprocating mass is necessary to over come this effect. The percentage of reciprocating weight (the "balance factor"), which should be included in the weight fitted to the crankpin before balancing, is based on experience. It is not an exact science, and cannot be worked out by mathematics. Manufacturers find the correct factor for their production engines on a test rig by trial and error until they achieve the best compromise for a given engine speed and overall weight of the machine. Modify the engine and the balance factor will change!

Having said all that, they weighed my pistons and connecting rods and found them accurately matched. They then put the crank on to their balancing machine and found that with no weight on the crankpins, the crankshaft was roughly in balance. But, as soon as any weight was put onto the crankpins, the crankshaft became so unbalanced that it would not have been practical to balance it at all. To quote: "The crankshaft would need to be redesigned or heavy metal slugs attached to it in places". However they then revealed that sometimes engines are "externally" balanced, hence the "ear" on the prop extension. As I understand it, with the crankshaft perfectly balanced without weights on the crankpins, and the connecting rods and pistons weights balanced, because the crankpins are not in the same plane, when it is rotated there is a resultant twisting moment trying to make the end of the crankshaft scribe an arc. Because they can't do that, the whole engine scribes an arc. This twisting moment can be counterbalanced by external weights, i.e. external to the main journals. So, putting an "ear" on to the prop extension has a purpose after all. However, my experienced engine balancers expected to find another external counterbalance on the other end of the crankshaft (flywheel end), and positioned 180 degrees relative to the counterbalance on the prop extension. They could not see how only the one counterbalance on the prop extension could work.

So, my crankshaft was balanced to perfection by drilling several holes in the correct places. My flywheel was then attached and found to be a little out of balance. This was then finely balanced. And that was all they could do. But they advised that I bolt weights to the flywheel and try it out. As the flywheel is much closer to the main journal than the counterbalance weight on the prop extension, they expect that the weight to be attached to the flywheel would be something like twice as much as the ear on the prop extension.

That then is the plan of action. I will let you know how I get on.

ED. NOTE: Just to tie some themes together, the thing that concerns me most about my Quickie is that if I lose my electrics I can lose the engine. It only takes one of several wires to break and I'm done for the day. Due to the high vibration level of the Onan there are higher than usual odds that a connection can snap. This is not too bothersome on short local flying where I can stop and "look under the hood" regularly, but contemplating a 900-mile flight to Oshkosh is a bit scary. Besides contending with the weather and navigation, one has the nagging wonder as to what's going on under the cowl during several hours of vibration at a time. This thought made me put two wires (with separate connectors) over every electrical trail I could. The likely break point, of course, is at the terminal end, so make damn sure the terminals are crimped well and that the joint can withstand vibration without working back and forth. Additionally, it is wise to eliminate all the vibration possible and first of all that means assuring the balance of the prop.


Will Hubin

I had an interesting time when I made my annual visit to Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport to display the Quickie on behalf of the Cleveland EAA Chapter. The tower told me on the phone that I should just plan to fly over the airport and look for a light if my portable radio didn't reach them. That is what happened but as I got over the runway I noted that an F-14 was on his take-off roll...and I remembered that they can go rather straight up when they get about as far down the runway as I was. I believe it was the pilot of the F-14, who was just practicing his routine before the gates opened, who saw me and notified the tower, which gave me the chance to go semi-aerobatic in acknowledging that I could hear him fine and then the controller sent me into a holding pattern south of the airport (over the city!), thereby providing a fine viewing location. Unfortunately, I also became aware that my "away" legs for taking many times as long as the "toward" legs and so wasn't entirely surprised to hear, along with a clearance to land, that the on-shore breeze was now gusting up around 25K - and was almost directly a crosswind. I thought I would take a stab at it, so to speak, especially since it didn't appear that they could hear my transmitter without turning up their hearing aids. It probably required the sacrifice of another one of the few remaining of my seven lives, but the little machine rolled straight as I felt its tail wheel scrubbing the runway after a little plop to make sure it was through flying. Two Long-EZ's followed me and one of them dragged a winglet on landing.

I note with interest the 2-cylinder, 4-stroke (Hornet or "Mini Magnum") that Rex Taylor is offering; at 90 pounds and 40 hp at 3400 rpm it is in the right ball park and he has a reasonable track record for his engines. In one of the magazines there was a picture of a Quickie with one of these new engines, so others have the same idea. I hope QBA will be able to keep us up on developments.

In my last letter (August 30), my disgust with other aircraft ignoring me on short final was noted. More recently, an aircraft tried an even worse scare tactic: a Yankee took off while I was taxiing on the runway toward him and only 900 ft or less away! Fortunately the runway was just barely wide enough for both of us, with me scrunched along the edge and he right down the centerline. I guess I shall have to fit more powerful armament to deal with these adversaries, going so far as to strike from out of the sun, even.

I notice you haven't used any of my last letter in the two issues that have come out since I sent it. The only thing I really care about is the possibility of selling the wheels for my friend (who is retired and could use the money) and for the Q builders who might be looking hard and long for such an item. I'll re-phrase it as a standard Classified Ad and hope you'll forward to me the charge since it is for a non-QBA member.


FOR SALE: Cast wheels, 4.10-3.50-6, for large-tire Quickie or Q2/Q200. Outside tire dia. is 12.5"; tire width is 3.5"; weight 5 lb 15 oz; internal expanding brake. $50. Call Russ Sholle (216) 923-9443.


Terry was somewhat concerned about the 4 or 5 year old Ritz prop on our Quickie; it showed some indication of shrinkage or something. I've sent it to Great American for re-conditioning (which they say includes taking it down to bare wood, re-tracking and rebalancing) as well as adding the new urethane leading edge protection ($22.50 extra), for a total charge of $150.



Ted Fox is the keeper of QBA's survey of flying Q-2/200/Tri-Q aircraft and is struggling to inspire a Hospitality Club for QBA. As part of his job with the U.S. Postal Service he occasionally travels for job training to Norman, OK, home of the University of Oklahoma and a Postal Training Center. His most recent stint was for 8 weeks, and since Norman is only a 3-hour drive from Dallas, he and I concocted plans to get together. Ted happens to be a photo nut (I'm sure there's a more correct, scientific word...photophile?) and he brought a carload of cameras and video gear down with him. You may recall that on a previous job-training jaunt Ted did a video we called "Top Gun Quickie" featuring Bob Giles' Global powered Quickie. Ted is a Tri-Q builder so he REALLY wanted to do a video on the bigger Q's. We done did it!

To get the big Q video, I spent a weekend in OK with Ted. We shot short video clips of projects in progress, trying to focus in on areas of unique interest or things the builder was proud of. Thanks to Al Medley (Tri-Q200) and Ron Cross (Q-200) in Tulsa (and Al's thoughtful wife who fed the hungry travelers). Also thanks to Don Short of Stillwater, who has a flying (100+ hours) Q-2, which we filmed in his garage being made "new and improved" for the coming air show season (sorry I made your dog a nervous wreck, Don). David Withington (Q-200) has a meticulously built and innovative project in Norman that we filmed, and it will be gorgeous! I can't believe all the new tips and suggestions I heard. I now believe I could write Q-TALK tips for another 5 years if I could just visit you guys in the hinterlands more.

A special thanks to Bob Malechek, Lewisville, TX (Q-200, 150 hrs) and Russell Cowles, Lake Jackson TX (Q-200, 600 hrs.) who made their beautiful planes available for the air to air to ground flight sequences. We had 90-degree crosswinds, but we didn't get skunked! When I had lost all hope, Bob's friend Joel Carrington showed up with his Comanche 180 to use as a photo plane. Thank you! I think of a Comanche as a fast, class airplane, but you should've seen those Q-200's zooming and swooping around us like we were a C-46 with a fat load on board! We had 3 camcorders burning film and Ted tells me he got some good stuff. Ted will do the editing soon and offer a VHS tape at a reasonable price to those who want some "E" close at hand (E ncouragement).

We all got 2 special treats in-flight: 1. Russell showed us skeptics a pair of Q-200 barrel rolls (pretty), and 2. Joel arranged for the 6 or us to get an hour's ride in the only flying Lockheed 10A Electra in North America. We all took a turn at the controls of this 50-year-old transport, a sibling of which Amelia Earhart tried to take around the world. The logs of this aircraft showed it was used to ferry British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain from London to Munich for peace talks with Hitler prior to WWII. When QBAers get together, neat things happen...so let's get some more get-togethers together, eh?


Dear Jim:

My Q-200 taxied squirrelly. Ran off the runway twice slowly uncontrolled. When I changed the axles to steel, I noticed that with full weight on the wheels that you no longer were looking 2" forward of the opposite axle IAW QAC plans. I was looking at the ground due to the down flex of the canard. I cross-haired the inside axle hole with thread, marked a X 2" forward of the opposite axle hole, noted an approximate center for the new outside hole. Then floxed shut the outside axle holes using duct tape to hold the flox in place during curing. (Thanx, Fred Wemmering QBA Nov/Dec 87). Then drilled a very small hole where I estimated the center of the new hole should be, re-checked the site picture, drilled a bigger hole, checked site picture, and finally drilled a 5/8" hole that had a perfect site picture for 1? toe out on each wheel. No change was needed on the inside hole, brake calipers, or wheel pants. The new hole center is about 1/2" down from the center of the old hole. My taxi tests now are great even with a 10 knot crosswind. Final note: I also had a very small variation in tow out prior to this adjustment.

Dave Naumann - Enterprise, Alabama


A great gift for you and/or your favorite co-pilot is this very attractive, gilt, 3 dimensional Q-2 casting made up as a tie-tack or collar pin. Pins are approx. 3/4" long. $13.50 each and still available. Great for explaining your project.



You can order a PDF or printed copy of Q-talk #8 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.