Despite various web searches, I haven't been able to find L/D ratios for the Quickie family. (My dial-up connection and 10-year-old computer, taking over a minute to load some of your forum pages, for example, discouraged me from manually searching for glide ratios among the plans and manuals you have posted on this site. So I'm sorry if I'm asking a question with an obvious answer.)
Hmmm? That's an interesting thought. I think we would have to send that question out to the community at large and take an average.
Each homebuilt airplane is a "one-off" product pretty much, so publishing data for one of these types can be a little tricky. This is especially true of a composite built kit with any number of engine and gross weight combinations.
That being said, if anyone would like to chime in here and tell us what the ratio is on their own plane, we're all ears.
I won't be able to tell you my data, until I actually get the thing out of the garage!
In my experience the Q-2 and Dragon Fly do glide much better than any Cessna. I did get to do an off airport (Interstate 75/4 in Florida) landing in a Dragon Fly and found it to glide excellently. I think the sink rate is a little (a lot) more in the Q-2.
An ego is no match for gravity.
Last edit: 7 years 10 months ago by F3A-1. Reason: I can
I am finishing a study of aerodynamics of the Q-2 (LS-1 airfoil) and Tri-Q2. I will publish the full results on the QBA "members only" side of this site when the study is finished, but here are relevant answers to your question about whole aircraft lift to drag. The original prototype Q-200 N81QA at GW of 900 lb. and CG of 44" has max L/D of above 14:1, but you must fly around 75 mph CAS to achieve this L/D. As you might already know, L/D is a function of airspeed. The typical Tri-Q has L/D of slightly above 10:1, again at CAS less than 80 mph CAS. I am attaching the L/D vs. CAS graphs to this note.