Ultimate Quickie Information Package!

Login Form

Q-talk 42 - LETTERS

Dear Jim

Our aircraft is a 78 bhp Limbach VW powered Q2 (G-KUTU), which has not flown since being fitted with the new carbon fiber sparred canard, following the original non-spar canard breaking on one of its early landings. Its prospects of taking to the air once again are hampered at present by a problem with which I'm hoping you can help.

Since the aircraft has been sitting on its wheels for a year or two now (actually about 8 years), it's developed chordwise ripples in the top skin of the canard, which I imagine I will have to fix before flying again. I wonder if anyone else has experience of this? If they have, I'd be interested to learn their fix. I've had the aircraft jacked up with the weight off the canard for 2-3 months now but with no effect. Our canard was apparently built with 3 instead of 2 ply of UNI on the top surface in order to give it greater "dropped spanner" resistance - but this seems to have been little help. As I recall, the original canard had something like 11 ply on the inner sections.

Our original empty weight was 573 lbs but this has increased with the new canard and repaint to 589.3 lbs. The work was carried out professionally following the insurance claim, since after the accident, we were all too sick to contemplate more sanding and filling! According to our weight and balance records, the C of G is now 35.2 ins. aft of datum as opposed to 40.88 ins. previously. This seems to me to be a huge movement. Can it be solely attributed to the slightly more forward location of the main wheels with the new canard? If so, does this mean that there is scope for the adoption of an adjustable prop with the attendant weight increase at the front end; what this would entail?

Our engine develops max power at 3400 rpm. Max continuous rpm is quoted as 3000, giving approximately 70 bhp. I would like to have full power available for take off, climb and go-round.

However, with the standard, kit-supplied 45"x56" prop, our static rpm was never more than 2600/2750, at which the power output must have been well down. In flight we got 155 mph indicated at 3000 rpm and 175 mph at 3300 rpm. I feel a smaller diameter prop, possibly 3 or even 4 bladed, might enable the engine to reach peak power for take off, while keeping the tip speed within limits but some form of adjustability in flight would be desirable to optimize cruise. Having driven many miles in VWs at 5000+ rpm, I'm not too concerned about the 3000 max continuous limit - except from the point of view of magneto performance. Any ideas?

If there are back issues of Q-TALK that you can recommend, covering these questions, please let me know and I'll forward a cheque. Many thanks.

Robin Nash, England

ED. NOTE: HOLD IT, DON'T ANYBODY MOVE. What you have here is a newsletter editor. Period. I did not design the Q-2, never even intended to design the Q-2, and am never going to venture in to answering questions best put to a qualified aero-engineer. All I know is that if you build it per plans, it will come out flying fine. If you don't get the results similar to the prototype or the bulk of flying airplanes (for which we've shown data), you better figure out where you departed from the plans and get your plane back in line with the plans. I can't be there to see your results so I won't comment on what you should or shouldn't do. (Robin is a new guy so he can be forgiven for his questions, supposedly directed to me, but we have a number of new guys and this is a statement of editorial policy for them too.) Besides which, if you do something wacky and kill your ass, I don't want to be listed as your official advisor just because I happen to edit this specialty newsletter. Let's be clear on all that.

Now, if someone else out in Quickieland has a speculation as to what you could do, I will print it or put you in contact as part of thousands of other speculative comments made in this newsletter over many years. Coming from an association member, a suggestion won't have the weight as it would coming from me.

As to your question on back issues, I have copies of every one I've edited as well as all those produced by the Quickie Aircraft Company. HOWEVER, I am long past the point of having the spare time to play librarian and look up just the ones that pertain to your particular area of interest. I get asked to do this all the time and I will not. You can buy them all and be your own librarian or save money and reinvent the wheel. Your choice. Besides, we're coming up on having some 500 pages of newsletter information in print and if you think I know where your item of interest is, you must be loopy. I ain't interested. I make the information available, but if you're not interested in having it all, neither am I. (Sorry, Robin, this was not aimed at you, but at all those callers and writers, usually new buyers of old kits who want to use up my time so they don't have to spend any more money.) Tough rocks. I'm saving what time I have for serious builders who've either been around with me a long time or who appreciate the value of all our accumulated information and the time we spent sharing it.

AND finally, years ago in an Oshkosh report I noted that the prototype Dragonfly was squatting on the flightline with inboard corrugations on each side of the canard. Unofficially I heard it was due to a failure to post-cure the canard as we were instructed. It may be that you can get the weight off the canard, jig it into correct alignment and then post-cure it after the fact. It's worth a try. I think the D-fly got another canard eventually, but I'm only sure I saw it later without the corrugations. Anybody know more?

Dear Jim,

A time for the annual confession to our spiritual leader and for saying thank you for his unflinching professionalism and unwavering persistence in providing the journalistic glue that has bound the builders together for 12 incredible years. As with any venture into an unknown, Q-TALK's success has not been based on the promises made but on the promises kept - by both the builders and the editor.

Looking back over the bulging folder of enlightening information, it makes me realize how fast the time has passed and that I have to get on with the project or stop kidding myself. Over the past few years the Q200 project has been stagnating due to, primarily, lack of financial resources necessary to see it through. The situation has not changed much since last year, but not all is lost. My other house had been extensively renovated and put on sale last August. It appears that I may sell it successfully this spring and thus re-allocate a big chunk of my spare time and money to my pet project in the basement. All said and done, a lightweight Q200 can still hold its own in any company and I believe it is an enthusiast's dream machine.

On a similar topic, I have plotted results from the Sun & Fun 93 as published in the Sport Aviation, July 1993, p. 27 and find them quite interesting. The best straight lines show the unquestionable advantage of homebuilts over factory planes and the performance that may be expected from a 100 hp machine. The past performance of Q200 in various races shows that she is there with the best of them.

Happy and prosperous 1994, safe flying and continuous success with Q-TALK.

Igor Mokrys, Calgary, Canada

Howdy Jim!

Exciting bit of news for ya! Terry Crouch (we really need to come up with a nickname for this guy, "Capt. Info") called a couple weeks ago when he saw my Rotax ad in the newsletter and wanted to know what I was up to. I filled him in and he vaguely remembered some other guys putting a VW on their Quickies. (ED. NOTE: Jon is well underway in installing a full sized VW engine on his formerly Rotax powered Quickie). He dug through his old newsletters and found two articles. One in May/June '82 and one in March/April '85, he faxed them to me and so far I have been able to contact two guys. I still believe there is at least one more and probably two that were in the Dallas area. The two that I was able to contact are Jim Adams ((910) 422-8181 and Ben Sheetzs (919) 876-0810. Both are from the Rowland, NC area and both still have the VW Quickies. They have had them since 1982 but neither has flown them in the last four years or so. Jim lost the balls and put it in a school planetarium (had about 100 hrs)! Ben just ran out of time but is a couple of years away from retirement and plans on getting it back out then (said he had "several hundred" hours). Both guys were really friendly and easy to talk to. I told them what I was doing and both were going to send pictures and other info. Jim still had his cowling mold and is sending it to me to use! What is really interesting is the spec sheet on these planes. I got numbers from Ben.

They cruised at 160 mph, climbed at 1000' min, and flew (better sit down!) at 800 POUNDS!!!!!! Can you believe that!! Sounds like Jim's airframe was stock. Ben had put two layers of Carbon Fiber on the bottom of the canard because it sagged so badly!! (Wonder if this had something to do with the weight?) He had extended his fuselage one foot between the wings, flew with the original gear and then later switched to tricycle gear, and had changed his tail so it sloped upwards. I sent Jim a copy of the last couple QBA newsletters (copyright infringement?), he was curious as to what has been going on in the Quickie world.

My swap is coming along real well. I have the new firewall all finished up and have the engine on. Currently working on the intake and exhaust. I got one of Steve Bennett's Zenith updraft float carbs. Looks like a pretty good unit. They have a great track record by all that have used them. So far the plane weighs 330 lbs. Sadly, that weight does not include intake, exhaust, cowl, prop, or instruments. But even so, I think I may come close to a normal flying weight of 650 lbs.

I sanded away the paint on my canard around those cracks on the leading edge that we looked at during the Ottawa Fly-In. Turns out they were due to some hollow spots in the foam. There was no glass damage; it had only cracked the filler, primer, and paint. I filled 'em and laid up 2 ply of UNI and 1 ply BID about 36" either side of center and about 4" on the top wrapping under about 2". I have put a new pitot tube in; old one broke (leaked) so I had a copper line running along the bottom of the wing, looked terrible and probably really hurt the speed. The new fuel tank is finished. It is 8.5 gals, has a dip for the control rod, the old sight fuel gauge (it was cheap and simple), and best of all doesn't leak, yet! I glassed in a little tunnel down each side of the fuselage for the rudder cables and shortened the rudder pedals (due to moving the firewall back four inches). A really light battery box has been constructed and is glassed to the floor aft of the bulkhead, which is aft of the split line (about station 145 or so.

Please put the following ad in the newsletter again. Thanks!!

Rotax 503 SC, Dual CDI Ignition, 2.24:1 Gearbox, Motor Mount, 2 Cowlings for Quickie, Between Jinx & I it has 400 great hours on Quickies. $1000.00

John Finley (406) 443-7311

Steve Whiteside, Ringwood, NJ writes:

Jim, I'm sorry to be so slow with my renewal. I wanted to finish this antenna design to send you and finally here it is. Also, I have been involved in purchase of a Mooney and learning to fly a complex airplane. Gee, does that keep me busy! Now I know why they call it a complex airplane.

Anyway for those of you who want a good antenna, I have designed the "C" dipole. It fits on the bulkhead at FS120. Using a version of MININEC antenna design code, I guess I have put in at least three months work on this (elapsed time of more than a year). The "C" dipole is built from hobby shop brass tubing (two 1/2-inch OD by 12-inch pieces and two pieces 17/32 OD by 12) and two 3/8 plumbing copper 90-degree elbows. Cut the 1/2-inch OD into 8.125 and 3.875 pieces. Solder all of the brass tubing parts and elbows together. See the enclosed drawing for the dimensions. The centerline dimensions are 17.625 by 14.0 inches. The outside dimensions are 18.125 by 14.25 inches plus some small bumps on the elbows. Practically, I would try to keep the dimensions accurate to within 1/8 inch.

The performance of this antenna should exceed that of the vertical fin-installed dipoles by about 3.7 dB in the forward direction. That means you will have an effective power increase of 2.3 times that of the vertical fin dipole. This forward power increase is primarily due to the interaction of the rudder torque tube-with the fin dipole. The rudder torque tube is so close to the fin dipole that the normal circular pattern is reduced in the forward and rear directions. Since the received signal voltage is proportional to the square root of the power, a 2.3 times power increase means you will be able to communicate about 52% further forward (15 miles instead of 10 miles). There is a slight (0.9 d&) loss to the sides with the "C" dipole. This is not significant since we want our best range in the forward direction.

Furthermore there will be even more of a power increase due to better impedance matching. The vertical fin dipole has a calculated VSWR that varies from 1.47 to 4.7. It is 3 at 122.5 MHz. An VSWR of 3 means that 25% of your transmitter power is reflected back from the antenna, so only 75% goes out. By comparison, the "C" dipole with its matching stub has a VSWR, which is less than 1.8 all across the 118 to 136 MHz band. It measured 1.4 at 122.5 MHz. This VSWR=1.4 translated to about 97% of the transmitter power going out the antenna. This 1.1 dB VSWR improvement adds to the previous 3.7 dB pattern improvement to give a total 4.8 dB power increase (a factor of 3.0). So now with the "C" dipole your signal will be as strong at 17 miles as it was at 10 miles with the fin dipole. That is a tremendous improvement!

Notice that VSWR measurements must be corrected for any cable loss between the VSWR meter and the antenna. So if you measure your fin dipole with 30-feet-of RG-58A/U you will have about 1.8 dB loss in the cable at 127 KHz and a measured VSWR of 1.9 is actually 2.8 at the antenna. So what appears to be a 10% power reflection at the transmitter is actually a 22% reflection at the antenna. A very lousy connecting cable will make your antenna look good but your actual performance will be poor.

To achieve this low VSWR across the band requires a tuning stub, which also doubles as a balun. This tuning stub is 92-inches of RG-58A/U or RG-174/U connected in parallel with the transmitter coax. The center conductor of the transmitter coax connects to the upper leg of the "C" dipole and the coax shield connects to the lower leg.

The tuning stub coax connects exactly opposite. That is, the tuning stub center conductor connects to the lower antenna leg and the shield connects to the upper antenna leg. Use electrical tape to ensure that the shields of the two coaxes do not short together at the antenna. Then measure out 17 inches from the antenna connection and carefully cut off part of the black coax jacket insulation on both the transmitter coax and the tuning stub coax. Using zinc chloride paste or other soldering flux quickly solder a short wire between the shields. Tie the coax shields first and apply the soldering iron for as short a time as possible. This makes the 1/4-wave balun for the antenna and keeps the RF currents balanced in the antenna. Without this balun the radiation pattern would be distorted. Once this shield-to-shield joint is accomplished, the two coaxes should be taped together every few inches. Notice that the 92-inch tuning stub is left with an open circuit at the end away from the antenna. Ensure that the shield strands cannot accidentally short to the center conductor at that end. Use more electrical tape to protect the open end.

A tuning stub of this type could be used to improve any dipole antenna's performance across the aircraft band. However, depending on the element diameters and shape of the dipole a length other than 92 inches might be better.

A short piece of 1/2 inch PVC water pipe may be saw slit lengthwise and used to support the antenna center.

Install the antenna against the FS120 bulkhead with several 1/2-inch epoxy and glass strips or use tie wraps etc. Make it sturdy but I would not cover it completely with fiberglass since this would reduce the resonant frequency somewhat. Also provide good support for the coaxes near the antenna joint.

In routing your coax cables to the radios do not bend them tighter than a 2-inch radius.

I have tested this antenna taped to the bulkhead but not completely mounted in the tail cone. The measurements agree very well with the computer model. I have built four other antennas for amateur radio use using this same antenna computer code and the results have all been very good. Enclosed are copies of the calculated antenna patterns for the fin dipole and the bent "C" dipole.

One other point, if you were using a commercial antenna, I would try to mount it centered on a 6 (or wider) by 48-inch sheet of aluminum. This will approximate the ground plane such an antenna requires. The pattern will not be perfectly circular and the impedance match will not be as good as the bend "C" dipole. This is theoretical info; I have not measured an antenna so mounted. Other people recommend mounting those antennas on an 18-inch square plate. That seems much too small to me.

I hope this antenna design helps. As you can see from my notes, I have worked on it off and on for more than a year. There is an excellent book titled Antenna Impedance Matching by Wilfred Caron (ARRL) if you get interested in antennas.

Tom Cline wrote this up as info when his EAA chapter came to see his project, "N49X". Most of us know some of this, but a new guy may not ...

Quickie Aircraft Corporation 2-place Quickie was initially marketed as a 'Q2'.

First factory option - is the model 'Q200' conversion with a new canard airfoil and carbon fiber spar and a Continental O-200 engine (from a Cessna 150).

Another major Quickie-authorized option is the conversion to tricycle gear.

Additional factory options incorporated here include - belly board, speed brake, aileron reflexer and forward hinged canopy on gas springs.

Added option developed in Builder's Guide is that for dual side control sticks.

Instrumentation options kept to a minimum but include full gyro panel Mode C transponder, loran navigation with 99 waypoints digital COM with 720 channels hand-held nav-COM backup with VOR CDI.

And last, but not necessarily least - real wood instrument panel, two map compartments and cabin ventilation. (Upholstery and paint scheme yet to be developed.)

Dear Jim,

I have finally got around to writing you and giving a report on my Q-200 N218E. I just came in from flying this fine aircraft this afternoon. It is a real joy to fly. This is my third experimental aircraft. My first was a Fly Baby, which won the Best Fly Baby award at Oshkosh in 1970. My second was the Delta-Stingray which was featured on the front cover of Kitplanes, December, 1990 issue.

I have 60 hours on the Q-200 now and it is doing fine. I have had my share of problems getting the bugs out, but that is to be expected. The bugs I refer to are mostly ground handling problems due to axle alignment and brakes. I also re-routed the right rudder cable up the center of the plane, which made the handling much better.

For those who have not flown their Q-200's, I strongly recommend plenty of taxi time. I spent over four hours on the ground before first flight and that was with my 400 hours of tail dragger time. It has paid off so far, I haven't ground looped it yet. I must say after it is all said and done, it wasn't that hard at all. Anyone can learn to fly the Q-2 or Q-200. It takes practice on the ground. If you learn to fast taxi at 60 mph, you will have no problem flying the aircraft.

I have a full IFR panel and loran although I don't fly the aircraft IFR, it is peace of mind to know I have those gyros. I have installed a calibrated true airspeed indicator and, along with the loran, I have a pretty good handle on the performance. I might mention the aircraft will carry a pretty good load. I have flown the plane at 1270 lbs, field elevation 1200 MSL and outside air temp of 40 degrees. I have a DeMuth prop on the plane - a 60 dia and a 64-inch pitch. My prop used to be on Scott Swing's Q-200 and Mr. DeMuth tells me he has no hard information as to how to duplicate this particular prop. It was sort of an experiment with him and Scott. My plane will static 2500 RPM. I climb 2500 RPM at 125 MPH and I cruise 170 MPH at 2500 RPM. This still blows my mind. The prop will turn 2800 RPM and true out at 200 MPH so if I fly the plane at 2800 RPM at 3000 MSL then I can plan on 200 MPH true speed. I guess you could say my Q-200 will cruise 200 also. I prefer to cruise at 2600 RPM and 180 MPH.

I have retained the original configuration and equipment on the Q-200 engine as removed from a Cessna 150. I have all the original cooling baffles, cut down to fit in the Q-200 cowling. I have retained the carb heat box, the mufflers and heat shrouds, alternator, starter, vac pump, etc. I had to slice some little pie shaped slices out of each stack and heat them and bend them inboard. Then weld them so as to fit in the cowling. This airplane has the absolute best heater I have ever seen. When it is zero outside, you can fly in your shirtsleeves and not even have the heater half on. It sure is a quiet plane also, with those mufflers. I have had more comments on its quietness than any one thing. I have never been in another Q-200 so I haven't been able to compare.

The plane has electric servomotors on the elevator and on the reflexor, both done with springs. This means that you don't have to reach for trim, because the switches are on the control stick, along with the mic switch. I have a 20 gal main tank, which extends the range when you are solo. It is not a factor when you have a passenger as you must stay at a reasonable gross weight.

I have had some oil temp problems, as so many seem to have. When I first started to fly the plane in July, I could only fly for about 20 to 30 min before the engine would be up around 210-220 degrees. I made an aluminum block to mount onto the O-200 oil cooler pad and drilled and tapped it to accept 'AN' fittings and used aero-quip flex line to get me to the upper cooling area in the cowling. I connected 6 feet of finned aluminum tubing and ran around in this area and across the front of the engine where the cooling inlets are and returned back to the rear-cooling bulkhead where I connected to the other aero-quip hose to return to the oil cooler pad. This dropped the oil temp about 20 degrees. I think this next summer, I will install a regular oil cooler as I don't like oil temps above 180 degrees.

Now that I have learned to fly this beautiful bird, my wife can enjoy it along with me. I am very proud of the fit and finish of this plane. It is painted with Imron and is white with aqua trim.

Before I close, I must thank you for the joy I get from the mailbox each month, Q-TALK to be precise. I will try to contribute more often in the future. Anyone who would like to talk to me about my plane or their plane is welcome to call me in the evening, (614) 393-7333. I am better at talking on the phone than writing. All you Q-builders out there, hang in there, it is well worth it!

Lowell Borchers

Dear Jim,

Got up to Kenosha Airport to see Bill Butler to get a ride in his Tri-Q, he has quite a hangar there, even got carpets on the floors. He took off to use up some gas so the two heavyweights could go flying but on landing he had a nose wheel shimmy and bent the nose wheel fork, and broke the nose fork pant so we had to put my ride off until a later date.

I am working on my Tri-gear conversion and have part of the nose gear welded up and starting to install the main strut, it's a big job but a little each day and I may finish it yet. At 72 I'm working against time, hope I win.

Appreciate all the good tips. Keep up the good work.

Gordon Hanson, 1302 N. 11th Ave., Melrose Park, IL 60160

Dear Jim:

Enclosed are my '93 dues. Q2 2758 is very close to flying. It was signed off in September but engine problems, a new job and bad weather have delayed things.

I have a HAPI engine with a Warp Drive prop. I found that the "smile" air inlet does not work well with the Warp Drive composite blades. I assume this is because the prop blade is round near the spinner and therefore can't push air into the opening. I went back to the original cheek air inlets and my taxi CHT was much improved.

William Mueller, 5100 Rosebriar, Lincoln, NE 68516

Dear Jim:

Thanks for a great newsletter, and for printing the picture of my Quickie on the back cover of the Sept-Oct 1991 newsletter.

I haven't contributed much to the QBA since joining in Jan. 1989. I figure it's about time!

Onan powered N494K is doing pretty well these days. Hasn't always been that way! From your editorial in the last newsletter, I finally realized the problem! I didn't purchase the back issues of the newsletter when I joined. That turned out to be a very costly mistake. From my experience of trying to make good the 22HP version I became frustrated almost to the point of parting with the airplane. I learned that the engine wasn't even capable of one flight without damage. The operating temps. were impossible to get inline. It wasn't until learning of Ray Anderson's work at Sun-n-Fun 1990 that I began to have hope. Having acquired the back issues and reading his recommended changes I am convinced that my bird would now have 250 hrs since first flying in May 1989, instead of the 50 hrs it now has. That period of time cost me two valve jobs, one overhaul and an expensive balance job, all of which wouldn't have been necessary had I purchased those early newsletters. With his article in hand, the conversion to the 20 HP engine and other changes would have been done prior to the first flight.

I have also learned that the vibration of any two cyl. 4 cycle engine such as the Onan makes necessary such things as good quality gauges and a full floating instrument panel plus a constant load on the electrical system, for extended battery life, and everything under the sun safety wired. Those things seem to be essential for worry-free flying. Over half the hours on my bird have been put on since last spring. Other than the limited performance of 20HP, I am quite satisfied with the economy and dependability of the Onan for airplanes grossing at around the advertised 520#. I also own an Aeronca Chief so low and slow doesn't bother me.

One more note. As mentioned in the last newsletter about the performer series engine, the new heads purchased for my engine are the performer series heads - different part number than for the 20HP heads. Not sure what that means, but for comparison purposes she turns about 3400 rpms static and will easily over rev at cruise.

Looking forward to a good year of Q-Birding. And thanks again for your dedication to the cause.

Keith Welsh, Marshall, IL

Hi Jim,

Well another year has come and gone. We still don't have the long wing version Tri-Q 200 finished. We have worked on it some. It is setting on the gear with wings all attached. So all we have left to do is finish.

I have my Tri-Q's engine back together and running. I completely overhauled the engine including a new case. I am waiting on good weather for the first flight. I purchased most of the parts including case from Great Plains. His service is excellent. We still have four of the Tri-Q's here at Springfield.

Hope to see you at Sun N Fun. We will be heading that way December 26th.

James H. Langley, Republic, MO

ED. NOTE: I keep hearing good things about Great Plains in case the rest of you V-dubbie drivers ever need a resident consultant. I already have a reservation for Sun 'N Fun and am staying in the campground (unless John Touchet has floor space for a sleeping bag). BEE THERE OR BEE SQUARE.

Dear Editor Jim & QBA,

Some QBAers may be interested in the 'Science of Flight: Pilot-oriented Aerodynamics' (Iowa State University Press), which came out just this month. It is a 350 page, 8 1/2" x 11" hardbound textbook, which grew out of a course I've been teaching to flight majors at Kent State University since the fall of 1968. It is quantitative but does not use the calculus; the math and physics it uses is reviewed. There is a lot of EAA and Rutan - and a noticeable bit on the Quickie in the test; of the dozens of photographs, for example, three are of or from the Quickie (one shows Norm Howell's canard with all the "lovely" vortex generators on the GU top). There is quite a bit of information not readily available elsewhere on airfoils and aircraft performance, for example.

Keep up the good work!

Will Hubin, OH

Dear Jim,

Here's my renewal for QBA membership for this year. Still getting in 8-10 hours a week on #2351. Jim Ham and I are now at the stage where we have essentially finished the first cut at the contouring. We're getting mighty tired of sanding but there is hope. We have started working on the wiring at the same time to preserve sanity.

Had an interesting development in testing the header tank on Jim's airplane for leaks. There was a persistent very slow leak of air under low pressure, which we couldn't find for quite a while. No leaks at fittings, hoses or seams. Finally started checking the fuselage wall around the header tank inside and found two leaks through the inner skin several inches from the edge of the tank. Apparently, there is a leak into the skin inside the tank. The air is then flowing between the skins down to another two pinholes through the inner skin. Found the leaks with soak solution. We are going to try plugging it by pulling a vacuum on the tank and painting epoxy on the leaks in the hope that the epoxy will be pulled in along the leak path. We'll let you know if it works.

Our original 3rd builder/partner (who hasn't worked on his airplane in at least 8 years) has finally decided to sell the project. It looks like a local EAA member is going to buy it to finish.

Thanks for all your effort on behalf of all the builders. The newsletter continues to be a source of much information and enjoyment.

Bob Farnam, Pleasanton, CA

Dear Jim,

Enclosed you will find my $20. I wanted to add something to it (a note) and it just didn't get done within the timeframe I anticipated. Anyway, it is some of the best money I have spent over the last 10 years! Please keep your attitude as I appreciate your caustically expressed pragmatic point of view; it's refreshing. (?)

Q-200 serial #2710 (tail dragger) is still in that last 10% of construction that just never seems to go away. Essentially all that remains is wiring, filling/sanding, priming/sanding and painting.

One last major structural hurtle was completed (would you believe 90%) this summer with the installation of a greatly modified Tri-Q drag brake. The installation of the brake panel was done within the thickness of the 3/8" foam fuselage, using the outer skin and attached foam (trimmed to 1/4"), without disturbing the inner fuselage skin. I have included photos of it for any who might be interested.

In your Nov/Dec newsletter you mentioned that Jon Finley was scanning typewritten letters for you and sending via diskette for your editing. In the "for whatever it's worth" department, if your computer is equipped with a modem (not that expensive anymore) and you have a communications program you might consider receiving "DOS text" file transfers of letters from builders with equivalent capabilities (like myself) instead of hard copy via the U.S. Mail. This would allow you to electronically handle ALL of your requirements, further supplanting the drudgery with electronic novelty. To that end I have converted this WordPerfect 5.0 document to "DOS test" and copied the file (2710_931.TXT) to the enclosed diskette so that you can import it into your Wordstar program for modification without first sending to Jon. (Must of went over Jim's head Dave, cause here I am scanning and editing! - Jon!)

Dave Withington, 14622 Sunny Grove Drive, Houston, TX 77070

(713) 251-5855

ED. NOTE: OK, here's the deal, Dave. I do have a modem and use Prodigy all the time. I probably have a communication package around here somewhere along with about 10-15 other programs that I once was excited about but still haven't loaded. It ain't gonna happen. I enjoy the hell out of my computer to a point, but I'm a pragmatist, I use only what I absolutely hafta. I can't bring myself to spending hours plinking with the keys, installing and learning new things just for the fun of it. I got other fish I wanna fry. In fact, I have a hand scanner hooked up and installed but not working. Tech support told me to get into the card and flip a switch differently. Y'know what? In 4 months I haven't been able to generate the interest to open up my system and flip that switch. And further, Bob Falkiner spent valuable time a couple years ago trying to get me excited about modem transfer and just see where that got him. You're up against a brick wall fellas, I hate to tell ya. But it's a great idea, really.

Dear Jim

Had a great time in Ottawa, KS. I flew from Denver Tri-County to Hays, KS where I met Bob Bounds from Grant, NE. He beat me in by 20 minutes. We weren't there more than 15 minutes and here came Charlie Harris in his Q-200.

While at Hays we met Randy Schlitter of RANS AIRCRAFT fame. We got to see all his aircraft, two hangars full! The three of us spent four hours in Hays. When we left, Randy got out his S-11 Pursuit prototype and flew along with us for about 60 miles. He came past me doing a barrel roll. Really great!

The rest of the way in to Ottawa, Bob and I flogged our planes along at about 120 mph. This was still slow flying for Charlie. He had his nose so high in the air he couldn't see. We had to tell him where he was.

Again you and Spud did yourself proud for a great fly-in. I enjoyed visiting and looking over all the planes. I found some new ideas that I am going to try. Changing the main jet sure made a difference as I didn't bust a prop this time.

Sunday morning Bob Bounds and I headed home. We had been flying for about an hour and fifteen minutes and were just a little west of Salina, KS, at 8500 ft when Bob called me and said he had lost a cylinder. His engine was running but he couldn't hold altitude. We turned southwest for about ten miles to Ellsworth, KS. He made it over Ellsworth with plenty of altitude. He circled the field and landed. I followed him in. We pulled the cowling and checked the sparkplugs. He changed the worst looking one, refueled and ran up the engine. It seemed to run Ok so he took off and circled the airport several times. I took off after a bit and headed for Hays. On the way to Hays it ran OK except for a miss now and again. Bob told me after we got to Hays that he had no trouble staying awake after Salina.

At Hays, the weather began to get bad. Bob pulled his cowling and field striped his engine, taking off the head, cylinders, removing the piston rings and then removing all the carbon that he could on the pistons, rings and heads. Reassembled the engine, ran it and it seemed much better, he still didn't trust it 100%. The weather was getting worse so we put our Quickies in an unused hangar for the night. It had started to rain.

We stayed at Hays Sunday night and Monday we started for home again. Bob said his engine was running pretty good. We split up about 90 miles of Hays, Bob turning north towards Grand, NE and I heading on west. Ceilings started lowering and so did I. Finally running into rain. I turned back and landed in Oakley, KS.

The place was deserted. - Labor Day - No gas. After about 30 minutes, I climbed back in and started for Goodland, KS. The ceilings were low but I had great visibility. I got within 4.8 miles of Goodland by my Loran and had to turn around, went back 25 miles to Colby, KS. There sat Bob on the ground when I landed. He had weather problems also. We refueled and went to lunch then back to the airport. We mounted up again, Bob to the north, I to the west.

I made Goodland, KS and took on 0.9 gals of gas and waited about 45 minutes. Then took off for Burlington, CO. No Gas. Spent about 1 hour for weather to improve, then on to Limon, CO. I had to divert to the north about 10 miles for a rainstorm. When I got to Limon, no gas. I had about 4 gallons left and Front Range Airport was 53 miles to the northwest. No problem. Got to Front Range and found that I only had enough 2 cycle oil to put on 2.33 gals of gas. That was plenty to get me the rest of the way home.

When I arrived at the house, Bob had called and said he had made it home. He got to check out his vortex generators on his plane and reported they worked very well.

This has been a good adventure with the little Rotax powered planes. It keeps the adrenalin flowing.

Prior to heading for Ottawa, I put in a Rotax rectifier -- regulator 866 080 and connected it per the wiring diagram that came with the regulator. I balanced the new tires, replaced the rubber brake pads and installed the wheel assemblies. I taxied out to the end of the runway and when I did my run-up for max static fpm, I was 400-500 rpm low. It would not come up to 5100 rpm. Sooooo, back to the hangar! I checked the sparkplugs - nothing, I changed the gasoline/filter - nothing, I checked the carburetor for full throttle opening - nothing, I removed the engine and took it home. Got new sparkplugs, new gasket set, new points and condensers from LEAF. Tore the engine down, de-carbonized the engine, set everything up to specs, and reassembled the engine. Reinstalled the engine on the airplane, ran the engine and still - nothing.

I sat down and asked myself what was different since the last time I had full RPM. Finally I remembered that the tachometer was set up different. So I rewired the Tach to its original configuration and PRESTO - 5200 RPM!

Here is the sketch of the wrong way and right way to connect the tachometer.

You can order a PDF or printed copy of Q-talk #42 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.