Matt,
I had the VW engine sitting around. My point is that the engine
weight was not a problem for the Q1 airframe.
The VW engines have proven over the years to be a reliable Aero
engine.
Ryan
--- In
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, matt Hughes <smoothmatson@y...>
wrote:
>
> Ryan, you have me convinced! thanks for all your info. I think
that i am going to go with a vw.
>
> Tri-Q1 <rryan@s...> wrote:Matt,
>
> 424# empty + [8gal.] 48# fuel + 180# pilot = 652# gross take off
> weight.
>
> 60 horsepower vs. 22hp = 1100 fpm climb vs. 150/250fpm.
>
> The main gear can handle the weight, I have bounced it, like a
diving
> board on a bad landing---still no stress fractures at the fuselage
or
> paint.
>
> Fortunately all Rutan designs are over designed structurally.
>
> I changed to tri-gear because after over 50 hours flying this type
> of maingear I wanted something more reliable on landing.
> The tri-gear lets me land and takeoff in 650' to 800' with no fear
of
> a prop strike or crosswind chalenges. I had to give up about
9/12mph
> in top speed with the tri-gear.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> --- In
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
, 'Matt' <smoothmatson@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > Ryan. 424lbs. that is only 60lbs than the recomended maximum
> weight.
> > With pilot and fuel would the canard be strong enough on
landings?
> Is
> > this the reason why you switched to tri gear?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Experimental aircraft Aviation gear Aviation Experimental
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group 'Q1_Aircraft' on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>