Login Form

Q-talk 48 - LETTERS

"YOU CAN DRINK OUR THINNER!" You have probably seen this ad by System Three in the pubs. Well, I took the bait and ordered their test kit. To my surprise, it said that the primer could be applied with a roller or brush. Not liking the mess associated with spraying, I tried the 3" roller pad they supplied, and primed the rudder. I mixed the paint and catalyst as directed, stirred in a little water and had at it. At first it looked pretty rough, but as it dried, it began to smooth out and looked quite nice. The next day I hit it with 120 grit and then 220 grit and had a beautiful, smooth, reflective finish.

I was sold, so I ordered a gallon and began attacking the elevators and ailerons. Same great results. I discovered that I could actually put a coat on all the surfaces, and come back around immediately, before it dried, and apply a second coat. The instructions say you don't have to sand between coats for up to 7-days. Another nice feature. The primer dries to a nice hard finish. It appears that it will be quite durable.

I tried the paint sample in the test kit. It turned out okay, but to get a really super finish the book suggests you spray, and I agree.

The real beauty of the primer is that I could do a small job, such as a wing in about 30 minutes from start to cleanup. No mess, no smell, no toxins and easy cleanup with water. While I haven't applied a finish coat of paint, at this point I am very satisfied with how the primer works and looks.

Jerry Marstall, Fairview, NC

(704) 628-2062

Dear Jim,

This got my attention, real fast. Was at Sun-N-Fun, Sunday thru Thursday, didn't see you, and only saw one Quickie - 200. Was working with the Constellation gang all five days. Painting my Q-200 now, should be back together and taxi testing soon, maybe get to the next QBA fly-in at Ottawa, or whenever. To busy to go to Oshkosh.

Les Hildebrand


Sorry for the delay. Keep me on the list for another year.

Thanks for the insights on nose gear bouncing/collapsing in the last newsletter. It helps convince me that it's not worth converting my Q2 to a Tri. A bad landing is a bad landing.

Do you know of anyone using an Ellison carb on a Revmaster? I'd like to hear their opinion before I buy one. Keep pressing!

Dave Irwin

What follows here is Part II of a report from Derek Clarke of Doncaster, England. For a look at the finished product, refer to QT #47.

8. On fitting the top cowl I found the top spark plugs on No's 3 and 4 heads, particularly 4, fouled the cowl. Previous correspondents indicated that this problem could be overcome by using a different plug namely REM 37BY (Q. Talk No. 17). I bought one of these plugs but found it was the same length as the original so I altered the cowl.

9. The Y shaped exhaust pipes for the O-200 engine were too long and fouled the bottom cowl. These were shortened by removing the flanges and re-welded using a wooden fixture for correct alignment.

10. Having read in Q-Talk about an oil filter for the O200 engine, I fished around thru a Sport Plane supplier and bought a Taf Oil Filter, which was simplicity itself to fit. In the recent hot weather the temperature has risen towards the maximum when climbing so it may need some cooling over the filter body by feeding cold air from the cylinder head area as per mag cooling.

11. I know some builders have had problems with the cylinder head baffles by restricting airflow too much. This can cause high cylinder head temperatures and a bulging top cowl. There is no guidance of the gap to leave at the bottom of the cylinder body wrap around baffles. I have had no problem and the gaps are approx. 1 1/4". Equally through ensuring adequate air flow out of the bottom cowl via the back and around the exhaust pipes problems are reduced.

12. To simplify checking mag timing and to make it easier on engine removal I made an insulated block with two terminals and mounted it on the fire wall engine side. I then coupled the 'P' leads separately from left and right mag to the terminal block and on to the key switch on the instrument panel.

13. Finishing prior to painting is a pain. I used the West system with micro light filler, which was reasonably easy to handle both in application and in rubbing down but I still found tiny pin holes in the surface, which only became visible on the first application of the top coat. I used Standox Primer Filler and Standox 2K Standocryl Autolack available from automotive paint suppliers. This is a two pack acrylic refinishing enamel suitable for small repairs as I have already proved and contains U.V. protection.

14. Due to reported problems with spinners cracking I made an aluminum disc to fit behind the propeller hub front plate (see photo 4).

The edge of the disc was covered with U shaped rubber molding and when fitted supported the spinner throughout its circumference. So far the engine has run for 52 hours without any cracks at the spinner. I'll report again when I have higher hours on the engine.

15. To fill the hydraulic brake system I used a simple method utilizing a 50 ml syringe as per the one supplied for measuring Safe-T-Poxy resin. Having filled the syringe with hydraulic fluid and coupled the syringe to the bleed screw with plastic tubing, all that was needed was to open the bleed screw and push the fluid in until it overflowed at the top of the brake cylinder reservoir.

Now to the flying part - as I had no experience on this type of aeroplane I was not allowed to do the test flying. Luckily at the same flying club there was a very experienced Q2 pilot who agreed to risk his neck in my engineering. Apart from the trim system, which needed adjustment after the first flight, the test flying went very well. In March after completing the paperwork and receiving the Permit to Fly I did my first flight. Reading and re-reading other peoples comments and advice proved to be most helpful, but nothing is quite like taking it up yourself. My previous experience was some 150 hours on Cessna 150/152 and Piper Warrior/Archer and the Tri-Q was a totally different kettle of fish. It took me a little while to settle down to light use of the controls in flight, my first efforts tended to be heavy-handed. Control on the runway is very straightforward against a Q2 as I understand it. I use 1/4" up aileron for solo and wait until 80 mph before pulling back on the stick. If you pull back early you'll get a thump on the nose wheel, which I assume is the canard tying to lift and then stalling. This or poor landings bent the nose wheel tubing and remedial work was necessary. The bend took place where the reinforcing tube ends under the canard, obviously the weakest point so I had a piece of 3/32" x 1/2" steel plate welded under the tube to stiffen it (See Photo 5). So far this appears to be successful and believe me I've tested it on a number of occasions.

After a bit of practice I was able to reduce the approach speed to 100 mph using the trim to reduce the stick load. The maximum up aileron is 5/8" and this is reached at about 100 mph when solo, after that the nose is raised by elevator but of course you tend to lose sight of the runway center line.

Initially I found difficulty in flaring with power off as per Cessna/Piper and had one or two hairy landing attempts due to pulling the stick back and towards me causing roll. This side stick is not as easy as it appears and I cannot think that I am the only one who has experienced this problem. As is usual in these cases, with time and experience the problem has mainly disappeared. However, after receiving sound advice to keep the power on right to the ground as others have said in Q-Talk, I am now achieving reasonable landings with only the need for a minor flare. I'm also enjoying flying the aeroplane which is so responsive in comparison to those I have previously flown.

When landing into a head wind I don't tend to use the air brake but in still air conditions I find it advantageous to steady things down on the approach and landing. I have just discovered that the heads of the hinge rivets are breaking off so I am replacing them with larger pop rivets. It just indicates the pressure loading on the brake and I never exceed 110 mph in using it. With two up the take off speed needs to be lifted to 85+ mph otherwise on lift off the aeroplane "wallows" until it picks up air speed. Similarly landing speeds need increasing by 10 mph, in fact I am now of the opinion that my earlier trouble with the side stick causing roll was partly due to allowing the air speed to get too low, so keep the speed up and fly it with power all the way to the touchdown.

Well Jim that's about it for now apart from a few numbers to compare with other Tri-Q's: -

Empty weight ........... 707 lbs

Stall solo ............. 68 mph

Stall 1100 lbs ......... 77 mph

Cruise 2500 rpm ........ 150 mph at 2000 ft

Rate of climb solo ..... 1200 ft/min at 100 mph

Rate of climb 1100 lbs . 800 ft/min

Being forewarned by Q-Talk when we appeared to be reaching or even exceeding the maximum permitted engine revs we checked the tach and found it reading 150 rpm high at 2500 rpm.

Derek Clarke, Doncaster, England


My partner, David Martin, and I acquired a Q-200 project last November. Last spring we cut most of the cores for the wing, canard and controls, as well as built the jig table for them. This fall we hope to begin doing the layups. I don't think we are going to set any fast build time records but we are having fun and should eventually finish it. After attending the Builder's meeting at Oshkosh we have a long way to go to even get close to the longest build time.

Thank you

Brian Case, 1102 Arrowhead Dr, Nampa, ID 83686

(208) 465-7965

Dear Jim,

I was really disappointed to hear that you had no more Q1 plans available. Just for the record, I believe that the Q2 plans are numbered. I am not sure, however, about the Q1 plans. If I find anyone that has a set I can copy, is this legal? I have written to Robert Bounds once before. I thought I might contact him again to see if he knows of anyone who has a set available for purchase or loan for copy.

As background, I have a degree in aerospace engineering and have followed the homebuilt movement for years. I cannot think of another homebuilt project that I would ever be more interested in starting than a Quickie. My son is three years from college, at which point I would like to take the spare time and begin a Quickie. With this in mind, please retain my address and phone number(s). If you ever run across another plan set, please contact me and I will work with you to arrange payment and delivery. Thanks again.


Carl Dowdy, 118 19th Ave NW, Hickory, NC 28601

(704) 322-1962 (home) - (704) 459-8452 (work)


ED NOTE: With the company out of business, it may be that it is legal to copy plans. A LAWman would have to advise you. I do know it is being done in the wide world of sport aviation so you can take it from there.


Tell the Quicktalk folks that Safe-T-Poxy gas tanks do disintegrate and form a light brown residue in the carburetor from the float level down. It got nearly 1/16" thick. It clogs the needle and seat valve so it floods the engine at low rpm. My engine stopped twice on rollouts. Don't anybody tell the feds! Tony Bingelis and Marshall from Composites Inc. say this happens all the time to composite gas tanks. Can't get anyone that will conduct a chemical analysis. I did also use sloshing sealer that may be the culprit. I have residue samples.

Dave Naumann, Enterprise, AL

(205) 347-7665


ED. NOTE: I don't think I oughta be telling the Quicktalk folks what you just wrote. I don't want anybody to think I am picking on my friend Dave Naumann, but it is highly suspicious, inflammatory and highly damaging to make the statement that all our S-T-P tanks may disintegrate. IF, IF, IF, IF, this is true, then you MUST cite the reference by page and publication in which Marshall and/or Bingelis reveal this finding or offer definitive findings of your own. Otherwise this is irresponsible hearsay that can cause untold financial damage to each builder who will replace his tank and even to the resin manufacturer itself. There are hundreds of composite planes out there with Safe-T-Poxy tanks. Many of them are quite old. We should have heard screaming to the high heavens by now if Safe-T-Poxy is dangerous for us. If there is evidence, let's see it. Otherwise, let's not whip up unnecessary hysteria with supposition. This reminds me of the "more rudder needed" controversy. Nobody offers any definitive data, but some guys are all up in any uproar because of somebody else's "gut feeling". Cut this shit out.

Dear Jim

It was great meeting you last weekend, and I wanted to thank you for your willingness to spend some time to help a complete neophyte like myself feel more confident in going about building an airplane - quite an undertaking, too, but very rewarding I'm sure, plus an end result in getting around to places quickly and efficiently. I can hardly wait to actually get started and see some progress! Hope your stay in San Mateo went well, and that you and your wife returned safely to Texas.

I've been avidly digesting the newsletters, and I just don't see how anyone could put together and fly a safe airplane without them - they are a wealth of information! Has anyone compiled a new annual index for all the points covered? Among all the new "stuff" to me, including not using the so-called hack saw trim system, "belly boards" (still reading and haven't found a definition for that one yet ...), nascent work on other powerplants, and other do's and don'ts. I have just learned that there is a 5-hour video out on putting a Q2 together - now that seems absolutely essential! Is it still available out there somewhere? I would assume that although it appears geared toward the Q2, a Quickie-1 builder would nevertheless benefit greatly from the principles discussed.

On a different note, I was horrified and greatly taken aback when I read about the deaths of Bob McFarland and Doug Swanningson; apparently, of all things, involving both individuals flying to the Florida show. I had been enjoying seeing articles from both these fine pilots in almost every newsletter, always giving generously of themselves, and now they are both gone. Has there turned up any definitive indication of what caused Doug's accident, so that we may be able to avoid similar incidents? It seems as though the McFarland accident was pretty definitively investigated, but does anyone know for sure what happened? With the degree of expertise these men had in taking care of and flying their airplanes, it seems that there just has to be something to be learned here that we all can benefit from. Have there been other fatalities more recently?

Now, for membership purposes: (not really sure that any of this is required, but here goes anyway ...): my Quickie-1 kit appears to have been originally owned by Bob Broderick (#63), then apparently sold or donated to a community college, which was working on it as a class project. It started lying around collecting dust, which was why they wanted to sell it - I bought it for petty cash, as by that time, they were desperate just to get it out of the hangar. Fuselage is near complete, and that's all that has been completed - or even begun! Lots of hardware missing, instruments, and the engine mount - but I still can't complain as it was practically given away. Hope to locate these.

I have been in touch with Evelyn Hanna up in Washington, and she sent me a short video as well as pictures covering the material that her son was working on; it appears that he was restoring a crashed Quickie (lots of pieces and parts) and working on a new one at the same time. There is essentially a new glassed, unpainted fuselage, canard, rear wing, unmounted canopy, and then painted pieces obviously having flown as a whole before. I tried to decipher the N number on the tail of the existing "aircraft", but couldn't make it out, to see who may have done the work.

So anyway, enough rambling, but my hat goes off to you, Jim, for hanging in there and continuing to offer your help in supporting those of us interested in getting the most out of the Quickie design. I look forward to further chats and maybe visits! Thanks again for everything.

Warmest regards,

Alan Thayer, 4807 1/2 Proctor Road, Castro Valley, CA 94546

ED. NOTE: Take a tip from Alan here. All you new guys need to get a complete set of back issues so you won't be dumbfounded struggling through problems that have already been solved years ago. We old guys are patient, but we don't want to be reading the same old stuff over and over again because a new guy wants to save a coupla bucks on back issues. We don't mind holding your hand but we don't wanna spoon feed you too.

QUICKTALK back issues #1-30 $2.00 each ($2.50 US Overseas)

1987 back issues (6) ...... $3.00 each ($3.50 ea Overseas)

1988 back issues (6) ...... $3.00 each ($3.50 ea Overseas)

1989 back issues (6) ...... $3.00 each ($3.50 ea Overseas)

1990 back issues (6) ...... $20 per set

1991 back issues (6) ...... $20 per set

1992 back issues (6) ...... $20 per set

1993 Membership, 6 issues . $20 US; $21 Can.; $26 Overseas

1994 Membership, 6 issues . $20 US; $21 Can.; $26 Overseas

Roster of Member/Builders . $5.00 ($6.50 Overseas)

Hi Jim,

I enjoyed the newsletter on Oshkosh, sorry you couldn't stay for the whole show.

Jim, I started making my engine baffles from the template I got for the O-200 and they're not to scale. Does anyone have the templates? I would like to borrow them. Contact me at 1-503-648-6007 after 4PM workdays or drop a line.

Thanks Jim, have a great day!

Jack Moritz, 4227 NE Brogden St., Hillsboro, OR 97124


I'm actually making some progress here. Had the O-200 engine mounted and it fits!! Now working on the elevators and the ailerons. The basic Q is complete and will start the long process of finishing the surface for paint. To make a prediction (probably stick my big foot you know where) hope to be taxi testing summer of '95!

Mark - Lima, OH

Note the split static line and the bellcrank for the rudder cables in this photo.

Dear Jim,

I enjoyed getting your letter. You didn't seem nearly as "Grumpy" as you let on. If you're ever out this way, yes, I would enjoy showing you my project. Although I can't imagine why you would want to see it. I'm sure you have seen hundreds already, and mine is just the same ol' collection of fiberglass parts spread out all over everywhere.

The reason I am writing again is to say that I agree with you. People should take whatever time is necessary to find out what they are getting, "before" they purchase a Quickie, Q-2, or Q-200 project. It is not a plane for a low time pilot, or someone who wants a complete, nothing to build, kit. I had a KR-2 that was a sheer joy to fly, but was a handful on takeoff and landing. Some said it was dangerous --- BULL! Just like the Q Birds, a pilot must learn to handle the plane, not let the plane handle him/her. It doesn't matter if you are flying a Cessna 150 or a P-51 Mustang, you have to learn how to handle that particular aircraft. Adjust your skills to meet the required level, not expect the plane to meet your skill level.

I am only a single engine land pilot, but I got my license in 1966, and have flown everything from Champs and Cubs, to Bonanzas. I have a Rotorcraft Helicopter rating also with 250 hours in Helicopters and 100 hours in airplanes. I had to learn how to fly every aircraft I have ever flown. Granted some were easier than others, but not one of the aircraft ever gave a damn about my skill level. I either did it their way or not at all. The Q Birds are no different. Along the way you learn to respect every craft for its own good points and bad points. There has yet to be designed or built, "the perfect aircraft". Everything is a trade off. If your airfoil is built for 250 knots, it is not going to stall at 35 knots. If you want to go low and slow, get a high wing like the Kitfox or Cessna 150. If you want to go high and fast, get a Bonanza or Q-200. And so it goes!!!

I didn't say thanks for pointing me in the right direction for guys like Scott Swing and Gary Wilson. It is nice to know that there are guys like them out there to help us out. And it is nice to know there are guys like you to steer the blind in the right direction.

Keep up the good work and keep your nose low in the turns.

Mike Sorrells

ED. NOTE: Well said, Mike (or should I say, "Well preached"? And, OK, so I WON'T come and take a look at your project if ever I'm in your area and I WON'T meet you in person and I WON'T say or hear something that might be important to you or I or the hundred other people we talk to in a year. I realize now it was a silly idea. All you got is parts scattered around.


Thanks for the encouraging note. Dogged we are, indeed! I forgot to bring my back issues with me to work, so I don't know if your 5-line limit includes name and phone number. I've condensed the ad to bare essentials. Anyone interested can call for more details.

FOR SALE: Tri-Q trailer; Rotorway RW100 engine, firewall forward; Warnke 56x58 prop; strobes; ELT; Tri-Q hardware, incl. complete wheel assemblies, fwd. canopy hinges, aileron reflex, mass balance, speed brake; plans; templates; more.

Thanks for the forum!

John Derr, 19 Escena Dr., Tijeras, NM 87059

(505) 281-0969 (H)

ED. NOTE: A-HA! A bona fide opportunity to explain Q-TALK advertising. As I told John, my policy is that you can have free advertising up to 5 lines IN MY FORMAT. This is not Trade-A-Plane. You can have 100 lines for all I care, but either you take them 5 lines per issue or you pay for the extra. This may seem silly to a few of you but over 13 years, I've had a time or two when somebody sent more than a page extolling the virtues of his plane for sale ... plus several pictures. If you can't do it in 5 lines, then pony up some bucks or go elsewhere.

And of course, if you have some kind of commercial venture going, don't expect my business to give your business a free ad. It's a cruel world, ain't it?


No Quickies here anymore, but since it looks like I still have a job for a while, please keep me among your subscribers.

Paul Paulikas

Dear Jim,

I would like to renew my membership to the QBA and accordingly enclose an International Money Order for $26, with my apologies for the late renewal.

My Tri-Q project progresses slowly. The airframe is complete and standing on the gear. Wing, canard and part of the fuselage have been filled (with West System epoxy micro) - what a horrible job, with everything in the workshop getting covered in white dust which floats about in the air (indicates it must be light I suppose), but the actual sanding was easier than I expected using a 33 inch long spline held parallel to span and sanding at 45 degrees to chord. Progress has been slow during the last few months due to other commitments, but I am really getting down to it now. I will not say that 1994 will be the year of completion as I consistently underestimate the time to complete each job!

I have had a successful trial fitting of the Limbach engine. The rear of the engine is different from the Revmaster, having a non VW casting enclosing the magneto drive gears, so it took a long time to work out the mount positions on the firewall for the thrust line to be correct (as per Revmaster) and therefore the cowling to fit correctly. The actual mountings on the firewall are those for the Revmaster, with standard O-200 lord mounts between them and engine. I am very glad that the mounting of the engine had already been worked out by the previous owner and that all the necessary hardware came with the engine when I bought it. It would have been very difficult to have done it from scratch. Anyway, I will send you photos of the installation when the engine is mounted for real.

With many thanks for all your good work toward keeping us going on our projects; building a Q would be so much more difficult without the support from the QBA and Q-TALK.


Chris Simpson

Dear Jim,

This letter may be a bit late, but December and January is our harvest months. Although I am 70 and supposed to be retired and living in Kapunda these last five years, my son who owns and runs the farm has got me busier than ever. Instead of the harvester I am driving the grain truck, which has the old-fashioned "Armstrong" steering, so driving the Q1 with its finger touch controls is unbelievable. Flying the little Quickie is one of the real pleasures I still have. Flew it to a "fly in" 120 miles away one Saturday, they said they are having a fish "Tuna" BBQ tomorrow so the next day I few down again. Some weeks later the Q1 took me to an 8 a.m. breakfast. The folks around here think I am a bit mad, but now they are quite sure of it. Usually when I come home I fly around over Kapunda letting my wife know I have made it yet again. As it is the only Quickie around, everybody knows it and being a tiny machine it seems to give an illusion of high speed. They love the sound of the two-stroke motor. Kapunda is quite large with a population of 2,030, they all seem to know me.

One day caught up with a cold front, which had passed about four hours earlier. I had to use more throttle and a lot more back pressure on the stick in the heavy rain, but I could still climb. I went through and landed just before the rain poured down.

My Rotax has twin CDI ignition, their own make, not the Ducati system they now use. Twice I had to fly home on one ignition, as the amplifiers have now both failed. Rotax has given me new ones free of cost, but you tend to keep a look out for a suitable paddock when you are on only one spark. I would like to try out that in-flight adjustable pitch IVO prop, as the Rotax has nothing to do once you are cruising. "Ah, but the dollars."

Still easily landing on my 700-yard airstrip on the farm, which has a power line crossing it at about the 1/3 position. I did put markers on the wire, actually while it was alive, 21,000 volts. Six-inch pieces plastic water pipe are easy to see, and the pilots don't worry, they usually land before on the short side or stay in ground affect until the wire passes over on the takeoff. It's a great life on the farm. Jim, I like your Q-TALK.


Gordon Laubsch

Here's the bizness end of a Rotax 503 installation on Norm Howell's Quickie.

Dear Jim,

Was I surprised to get your post card. I thought I had taken care of my subscription months ago. Oh well, getting old.

I was hoping to see you at Sun-N-Fun, I can never get there on Sunday a.m., Cathy and I work over at our church every week. I was at Sun-N-Fun three days, but did not run into you. I'll look for you at Oshkosh.

My Q-2 is coming along good, in fact, VERY GOOD. I am all done with the firewall forward. I'm putting the battery in the back, along with the static outlets and antenna. I should start taxi testing in a couple of months. Marv Getten was here for the Lakeland show, spent five days there and they too did not have the pleasure of seeing J.M.

Enclosed is my $20.00. Sorry I'm late. I definitely want to keep 'em coming.


John Touchet

I was perusing the October 1994 KITPLANES magazine when I spied this letter to the editor. If I knew this before, I have acted entirely too casually. Sooner or later some of us who are comfortable with epoxy/glass manufacturing will start playing around with polyester or vinylester resins so we need to be well aware of the effects of MEKP.


Here is an additional warning to Greg Warner's letter (in the August KITPLANES) on working with composites.

The hardeners of some epoxy systems will actually dissolve the cornea of your eye, given half a chance. Last year a warning note from the CAA came around. I have been using epoxies for over 20 years and have always used protective glasses when pouring out hardener, and now I know why! It seems that even a small amount of the stuff will destroy the cornea, and once started, there is no way to stop it.

I am not sure that ordinary protective goggles are good enough. Two years ago I had a hospital visit to remove a grinding splinter from my right eye. The particle had passed by both my normal glasses and protective goggles I wore. Maybe the goggles and a full-face shield would be better. That would cost more, but what price is an eye?

Andy Gibbs, West Lothian, Scotland

*** Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP) is a commonly used epoxy catalyst that can destroy an eye almost immediately. Research indicates that dousing the eye completely with water in less than 10 seconds after an accident will prevent cornea destruction, so I use the following precautions when mixing epoxy with MEKP: Goggles are donned, and I keep a bucket full of water in the workshop. I could remove the goggles and dunk my head in the bucket in a few seconds if necessary. The procedure sounds paranoid, but I feel better about using this dangerous chemical with a bucket of water nearby. - Ed.

You can order a PDF or printed copy of Q-talk #48 by using the Q-talk Back Issue Order Page.