Login Form

Q-talk 11 - LETTERS

Dear Jim,

Enclosed is a check for 2 Quickie pins. Pete lost the last pin and his hat while sailing. We gave it the burial at sea memorial ceremony...it was swift and I'm sure it did not suffer much!!

Sorry I missed the Wine & Cheese thing...I was in the room outstretched before the fan...taking cold showers fully clothed every half hour and laying in front of the fan. SURVIVAL at its best.

Bev Nuding, San Carlos, CA

ED. NOTE: Did I happen to mention is WAS hot???


My wife and I enjoyed the forum which was interesting and informative. Did I hear some red neckin' going on? Nah. Anyway, it helped me to make two decisions. Number one is a change to the Q-200 canard, which I have been putting off (I have a completed GU). Considering my height and weight (6'5", 260 lbs.), it will allow more leeway on CG adjustment and I believe it will be much more adaptable to Colorado flying too.

Number two, some of the builders seem to be indicating high altitude performance with the Revmaster is not too good, so for me, I feel a switch to the 0-200 will much better fit my needs.

I believe with the help of Martin Hollmann's book, Composite Aircraft Design, I will be able to construct a glass spar instead of the carbon fiber spar. Different modulus mixtures for supporting the same given load doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Anyway, I'm going for it. Anyone that's been through this experience and has ideas to share or information, please write or call me: 3828 S. Flora, Wichita, KS 67215.

Jim, we also enjoyed the Wine and Cheese party. It was one of the more enjoyable stops on our trip to Oshkosh. I'll send some pictures later of another way to make a canopy open and close that seems to work very well.

Jim Hefley, Wichita, KS

ED. NOTE: Here's another in-flight Revmaster problem as reported in a copy of a letter Rand Kriech sent to Revmaster president Joe Horvath:

"Dear Joe,

As discussed on September 12th I am returning my engine due to an apparent valve spring failure in flight on my return trip from Page, AZ. I was forced to land in southern Nevada with the engine seizing up on roll out. Please look the engine over and give me a call to discuss its repair..."

Rand will keep me informed on this and I will pass the info to you. It would be nice for you Revmaster owners if I would tell you warm and wonderful stories about this powerplant. After all, you have many bucks invested in it. If you want fairy tales, go buy "Cinderella". Meantime I will tell you what I hear from operators and I want you to do the same for me. I am still encouraged that the 5 Revmaster Tri-Q's at Springfield, MO seem to be operating just fine. Maybe these guys are all especially savvy and helping each other. Whatever it is, I hope we'll find out. I've been keeping tabs on 2 other successful Revmaster operators, both starting to have problems at around the 150-hour mark. These guys (Brown and Jones) use their Q-2's both in their local areas and on long cross-countries. They have NOT given up on the engine and I will report whatever I hear in future issues. Yes, I admit, the Continentals are not flawless engines either, but my opinion is that a Revmaster is far less likely to go 500-1000 hours. Anybody operating with 500 hours on a Rev or Cont in a Q-2/200 installation? Give me a history lesson, please.

Are you guys ready for ANOTHER year of this stuff??? Let's see. Same deal as I offered this time last year.

*********1989 DUES*********

All current subscriptions end, as always, on the first day of 1989. Anyone who renews between now and the next newsletter coming in December may do so for $18 (U.S. and Canada only, $22 overseas). After that newsletter hits the mail, the rate will be $20 U.S. and Canada, $25 overseas.

ED. NOTE: As a postscript to my encounter with Joe Horvath at Oshkosh, I sent him a copy of Q-TALK #10 and I wrote Kim McAndrew for his comments. Kim responded on Aug. 18:


Thanks for the info on your meeting with Joe Horvath. I have written him another letter (copy attached) as a result of your discussion. I'll let you know what his response is (if any)..."

Kim sent this letter by registered mail, he told me when I called him on Oct. 23. When he got no response, he called Joe who reportedly said he was in no position to help with Kim's engine failure because he was "winding the business down," Kim says. Joe also was interested in seeing a copy of the original letter I printed. Two days after the call, Kim got his registered letter back. He sent Horvath another letter with the copy mentioned above and that letter too came back unopened. Interesting.


Oshkosh was too hot but still very worthwhile. I was impressed with the vigor of QBA as evidenced by the turnout at the QBA forum especially. It's your fun newsletter that is responsible! (ED. NOTE: And the great contributions from you, Will, and all the other active guys and gals!)

Norm Howell's Rotax powered Quickie is really a beauty - easily the best I've seen. Think how the country could have been covered with tandem wings if we had that combo 12 years ago or so!

The little interview with you by a Milwaukee TV station was aired locally. Put it on your resume.

Will Hubin, Kent, OH

Dear Jim:

My carb finally came back from Revmaster with a special new needle and it operates much better. Still some work though, as the fuel flow must now be increased. We put in a T just below the header tank shut-off valve for the electric fuel pump and increased the size of the fuel line and gascolator. We expected to get a little more pressure to the carb while allowing the excess to fill the header tank. It was not very effective and since I am unable to get the Revmaster carburetion solved, I have decided to switch to the 0-200 now. We purchased 2 pull-start versions without starters and generators. More delay!

Thanks again for putting me on to Bob Malechek when I was visiting my son in Dallas recently.

Some kind of guy this Bob Malechek of Lewisville, Texas. How many guys would give up a whole Saturday to fly a stranger and his son around the Texas sky? Bob did. He had his Q-200 apart to touch up for Oshkosh but put it back together for one great day of flying. That HAS to be the greatest incentive possible to getting my plane in the air. What a day!!

Dick Pratt, Wilton Manors, FL

Dear Jim:

I just had to take the time to express my appreciation of your efforts at the recent gathering in Oshkosh. This was the first visit to this great fly-in by my wife Gwyn and myself. I thought that the builder's forum was very helpful and encouraging to longtime builders like myself who sometimes need a little extra "push" to keep going. I also thought the wine and cheese get-together was great and again I was able to gain insight from other builders who are now flying.

Again a big THANKS for all of your efforts that help keep the group together. P.S. I also got a chance to watch the video...I think I'm now on my 10th or 11th viewing.

Now a quick update on #2353. I am now about 1500 hrs. into this 500 hr. project. The Tri-gear has been installed in the fuselage. Main wing, LS canard, and tail section are all installed. Control torque tubes are operational and the canopy is going on this weekend. I still can't decide on an engine after selling the Revmaster. I think it's going to have to be C-85 or 0-200 since talking with the other builders.

I am hoping to get my first ride in a Q-craft this weekend by Jan Bowman. He has been flying all over and seems to enjoy the Revmaster powered TRI-Q.

Dennis Colomb, Suison City, CA

ED. NOTE: Just what I want, AT LEAST, from every man-jack of the QBA: a brief annual progress report!

1. I am just delighted by Lyle Harrison taking over the Wine and Cheese gathering. When I did it myself I spent too much time keeping tabs on wine flow and munchies. That distracted me from what I really wanted to do, that is, meeting and talking with you and your wives. Lyle provided that opportunity for me and I'm grateful.

2. Interesting you're considering the C-85. I bought one myself. From looking at survey numbers of flying Q-2/C-85's, it seems to me that 85 or maybe 90 horses gives most of the performance that the Q-2 airframe has to give. Beyond some theoretical point, it takes more and more horsepower to get less and less gain in performance out of a given airframe. Beyond about 90 hp you may start paying a hundred bucks per additional mph of cruise speed. But, you must also consider engine age, parts etc., etc. Anyone else out there have an opinion on this? As regards the Revmaster, guys like me want to fly it, put it up, fly it, put it up, fly it, etc, etc...we DON'T want to tinker, fly it, put it up, tinker, fly it, put it up, tinker, fly it...etc. This seems to be the lot of Revmaster operators. I would save more time owning/flying a Cessna 150, rather than tinkering all the damn time before I could go flying...unless of course I LIKED tinkering, as some do. Personally, I DON'T WANNA BE A SKILLED MECHANIC, I WANNA BE A SKILLED PILOT.

Cliff Stripling hosted a mid-August QBA gathering for the Dallas guys at his FINE home as a post-Oshkosh debriefing. We exchanged "inside dirt", things we saw and learned at the forums, and saw videos and snapshots of the big show. Cliff showed off his Quickie, which is as pretty as a picture and 99 and 44/100% done (since last year). You know the story, the plane's ready but the pilot's not. At least he's not one of the 80% who never finish their planes!

These gatherings are very interesting and helpful and from a social standpoint, great fun. I hope more of you give it a try.

Hello Jim!

Enclosed please find a cheque...to get me back in good with the QBA. I'm in my last year of art school...the plane (Quickie) is finished and signed off. I can fly! Hurrah! So far it taxis beautifully and I hope to be starting high speeds soon. I'm taking it very slowly and carefully. There doesn't seem to be any overheating or too much vibration.

Jim, my canoe is well anchored now...(since) I'm doing metal assemblage sculpture at school...I think I'll weld those 22.5 suckers (QAC's heads) to a coffee table and pass it off as art!

Anyhow, glad to be back. I fully intend that 3 patch bikini picture to get into a future QBA issue!!

Fran Benton, Victoria, B.C. CANADA

ED. NOTE: Promises! Promises! Let's see the goods (with the Quickie in the BACKground, please)! Welcome back, Fran.


A quick update on Quickie N8357R. It has been two years since we removed the Onan and began installing a Nelson model H59 that will produce 40+ hp and requires no gear reduction (multiple "honey-dos" superceded the project). Just prior to bankruptcy Sheehan was putting a similar two-cycle on N77Q. All related molded/machined parts have been completed including a cowl to house the wider Nelson and final assembly is underway. I will write a follow-up report once we have reliable flight data to report.

Bob Benenati, Tamarac, FL

ED. NOTE: Quickie driver Chris Young got his hands on a Teledyne-Continental advertising flyer on their model GR-18 rotary engine (45 hp at 7,500 engine rpm). He writes:

Hi Jim:

I called Teledyne several times and eventually found out that this GR-18 is $12,000-$15,000 each (intended for remotely piloted vehicles). However, they tried to tell me that an industrial version will be available for less $ in "about 2 years". Sure!! Happy vibrating!

C. Young, Ocean Shore, WA

Dear Jim:

In the Jan/Feb Q-TALK you printed that U.S. Q-2/200 kit numbers start at #2000 and end at #2883. Mine is #2884, bought in Oshkosh in 1984 so surely mine isn't the last. I very much want to and will do this kit, but it looks like a real mountain at this point. I wish Quickie hadn't sent all the epoxy at once, but they assume it will be build then too. The hardener is darker but seems to set up OK and I use it for patch jobs--handy stuff.

Clark Betts, IA

ED. NOTE: Time to give this reminder to other guys too, Clark. Old epoxy with dark hardener that gives a good scratch test when cured should be just fine as filler with micro (and Lord knows, you need plenty of it!), but don't use it for structural joints, wings, fin. Face it, would you be so chintzy as to try to save 50-100 bucks on a couple gallons of fresh epoxy only to die in a crash because you were too cheap?

Dear Jim,

Partner Jim Doyle and I got our C-85 powered, new-canard airplane finished late last winter and have been very cautiously playing with it ever since good weather arrived. Norm Howell flew it in April and pronounced it a dandy, but neither one of us has found the cojones to fly it ourselves. We've taxied miles and miles at speeds up to 65 mph, but we still feel it's a handful on the ground. Although it hasn't happened to me yet, Jim made 2 high-speed excursions into the boonies, fortunately with negligible damage. Anyway, we're chary enough that we've ordered Swing's tri-gear kit and won't be fooling with it anymore until it's on training wheels.

One thing we've proved is that our own design reverse-flow cooling works swell. We've had some problems with vapor lock after shutdown (the engine-driver fuel pump was in dead air and quickly soaked up the heat of the crankcase) but changing to 100LL seems to cure that, and we think other planned measures will let us go back to Amoco no-lead.

On the back porch of Homebuilder's Corner at Oshkosh on Sunday I fessed up to Doyle's and my carbon fiber canard design and indicated we'd be glad to share it. We know it flies and is plenty strong (60% stiffer than the original Q-2 canard) so I don't think the liability issue is too important--nothing is crash proof!

I don't intend to rewrite what I sent you, Jim, as a formal set of instructions. So, profanity and all, anyone may have it for the reproduction and mailing costs -$3- which will include the full size template drawings for cutting the foam cores. User MUST have access to the original Q-2 plans. It takes one 250 ft. roll of 5" carbon fiber, plus foam and 50 yards or so of UNI, phenolic, elevator spar tubes/bushings, etc. It will weigh a little over 60# without filler/paint/wheel pants. Had a helluva good time at the EAA convention and enjoyed most the give and take with other similarly afflicted mortals - EVERYBODY had something to contribute! A day after we got home, Doyle and I had the second 10-layer cockpit layup for our Tri-Q conversion done!

Hugs and kisses,

Larry Weishaar, 1924 North 6th Street, Springfield, IL 62702

Dear Jim,

The rebuild of my canard is coming along. Naturally, though, not as fast as we would like. Lots of things jump up and demand attention.

Because we are converting this to a Tri-Q, we decided to build the Waddelow sparless canard. The plans were pretty clear. The unusual feature of this design (from Gene's) is that the spar caps are tapered to a long "V" at the ends, and the shear web had additional layers of BID from BL 100, 60, 40 and 20. There is an additional shear web at 30% chord from BL 57 right to left. Scott Swing provided the plans and has been his usual selfless help. Another good thing to come out of my accident (see pg. 4 Q-TALK #10) is that I have had a chance to really think about the mechanical aspects of this plane. I believe I understand them better and am anxious for spring to come to get back into the air. Lenny Padios has been a great encouragement with his phone calls.

Daryl Alleson was through recently. He has been assigned a hospital chaplaincy in Bismarck, ND. Because of the forest fires, he could not fly the pass enroute to his new home so he trucked it to Cut Bank. He had done extensive taxi testing following an engine re-build, but had not flown it in quite a while. Sunday evening, after 5 trips down the runway, he took her up. I believe I was as excited as he was!

Monday morning was CAVU and he left. I later found out that near Havre, MT he went to adjust his throttle and...nothing! He called the Havre FBO, told them of his emergency, flew a practice approach and then on the real thing, turned the master switch off, pulled the mixture off and made a dead stick landing about a third of the way down the runway. That is textbook. Do you suppose the Lord was his co-pilot? The nut on the throttle linkage bolt now has a shear pin and he asks all of us to consider that change.

Dan Judge, Cut Bank, MT

ED. NOTE: Some time ago we did a pilot profile on Rev. Daryl and then he dropped from sight. I'm delighted to know he's still doing God's work and still enjoying his Q-2. Thanks for the contact report, Dan!

Dear Jim,

Certainly without the QUICKTALK link a lot of extra time would be spent that we save with the helpful hints from the newsletter. Fortunately, I'm working in the same hangar with Jim Casey who's a retired Minnesota Mining product inventor. He makes up with his ideas and craftsmanship for some of my ineptness. Together we will muddle through and finish and when we do our ground and flight-testing we will have the advice and experience of all who preceded to help. Thanks everyone!

Max Kroll, St. Paul, MN

HELP, Canadians! Ken Norwick of Bramlea, Ont. His last newsletter was returned to me undeliverable. Anybody know his whereabouts???


by Bernie Kerr, West Palm Beach, FL

Ever since that day in October, 1981 when I saw G(host) Sheehan fly that yellow, elevator-less, bi-plane, star wars beauty at Mojave against the deep blue, high desert sky, my life has not been the same. I was in love!

I would have one of those neat machines even though my body was extremely sensitive to epoxies. Immediately I ordered a Safe-T-Poxy kit to test my compatibility to this new, less toxic epoxy. I helped a Q-2 builder who was laying up his canard; the next day my eyes were swollen shut. But I was still infatuated with Q's so I made a deep-sea type (but lighter) helmet to pump in clean breathing air. I used safety gel on my hands. No help. Then gloves and more gloves until I came upon North Butyl gloves, I used fresh air and applied vacuum bagging techniques. Now I can survive.

Being an experienced aero/mechanical engineer and of Scottish heritage, I decided to build from a set of plans only. In 3 months I was hangar flying in the cockpit of my own fuselage with hinged canopy. No, I'm not retired, I just desperately wanted to own and fly a 180-mph/64 hp modern-day airplane. I used up only 200 man-hours with no time off from my job at Pratt & Whitney.

About now, the first seeds of doubt loomed. A non-factory machine flew in Oregon and got good reviews until he painted a leading edge stripe on canard and wing. Gulp * full up control and barely holding level flight followed by a terrifying but safe high speed landing. Whoa! Why was it sooooo sensitive?

After many hours of brain churning (after all, I was in love), I reasoned that the masking line was just at the critical point and tripped the unenergized laminar flow slightly behind the start of the adverse pressure gradient, killing the lift on the laminar canard while having no effect on the conservative wing airfoil

I was still pumped, so off to Mecca (Oshkosh) to see the Q-2's arriving. Well the first one landed and the pilot was the color of his airplane - brilliant white. His airplane was for sale. Bugs in Arizona and another scalding, terrifying landing. There was talk about rain doing the same thing. I didn't need that kind of plane in Florida where bugs and rain are plentiful.

I was an engineer coming out of a dream. Now what? NASA aero data was no help. Airfoils similar to the Q-2 showed no impact on lift with smooth vs. rough surfaces. The drag WOULD change on the canard, but the absolute max elevator change to compensate for this calculated at less than 2 degrees, not full deflection. I found the answer in a World War II "secret document".

When the P-51 was tested with roughness at 1.5 million Reynolds Number (RN) rather than the normal 6 million; the lift was reduced over 25%. The Q-2 canard is about 1.0 million RN at landing. Gulp, did my dream ship fail me? I wrote Sheehan and QBA a long engineering dissertation on the basic stability of tandem wing canards. Sheehan would not acknowledge there was a problem IF the kit is PROPERLY constructed, but he would not agree to demo the landing speed of the factory Q-2 with a piece of 1/4" masking tape just aft of the canard leading edge. QBA did not publish my article (Insert Ed. comment....mmmph).

Now what? I decided to build a conventional design of my own around this neat fuselage. I ran a tunnel test on a 1/6-scale model then started building. Another disaster: The FAA lifted my medical. It took 2 years of testing and letter writing to get it restored.

Meantime, Sheehan is selling a fix for our non-existent problem called the Q-200.

More years pass and I'm now 50 years old. Will I ever fly my dream machine? My juices got flowing again at Sun 'N Fun '87 and shortly thereafter I met with Jim Masal on a trip to Dallas. I got caught up on the stories. Boy is it a shaky feeling.

My current thoughts are to go with a tricycle gear to unload the canard stresses. I will make a Nomex core canard to carry some fuel, thus lowering stresses and getting more cockpit room. I would not fly a highly aerodynamic, loaded, short coupled, tandem wing canard without either an aileron reflexor and/or controllable horizontal tail trimmer. I will use an engine in the 85-115 hp range. Anyone considering a Mazda or INAV rotary, I'm interested in talking to you.

This airplane can be dangerous in ways other than epoxy toxicity. It is highly sensitive and thank goodness it is crashworthy. We need a communication link to minimize mistakes that bite hard financially and jeopardize our lives, so lets support Jim in publishing Q-TALK.

Yes, I'm still in love with my dream ship!

ED. NOTE: I just got a call that another of our exotic birds was destroyed in a landing accident. Kansas Dan Bradley bought N39774, which had been built by Ellis. It had been previously damaged in a ground loop. After one go-around, Dan put it down hard and wrecked it. He only got minor scrapes.

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