Q1_Aircraft: So where's the sweet spot?

I'm new to the board - looking at a Q1 right now, but have been
watching for a long time (been on the Q-List, but only just got
invited to this one!! Spent last evening reading the entire
board...)

But I'm curious where the sweet spot in choices for engines lies?
We know it will fly with as little as 18 hp (though admittedly,
performance seems somewhat anemic - especially at higher density
altitudes). Several are flying with at least 60 hp, but I know I've
spoken with Ryan, and he felt the larger engine gave him more climb,
but not a great deal more top speed (of course, the gear changes
have altered things there a bit too...)

I did not see (or overlooked) if anyone had ever tried to compile
any sort of database of these aircraft, and specifically, what kind
of powerplant, what the overall weight of the aircraft is, what
prop, and what performance (rate of climb, top speed, stall).

From my reading, I'm getting the impression that the 'Sweet Spot'
(if you will) seems to lie in the 35-40 hp range, balancing fuel
consumption with performance. Of course, you have to take into
consideration at what rpm the peak hp is measured a 60 hp 4 cylinder
VW is quite a different beast from the Hexodyne P60, for instance
(and I've been watching Dave's build with great interest!).

If there is no data base, then I would be happy to volunteer to
attempt to assemble one - if someone knows where one is and can
point me to it, I'd be equally grateful.

Thanks all, and looking forward to hanging out with you all!

Best regards,

Jonathan

Thanks Ryan!

Well, you bring up a good point on the diesels. I have actually
been
doing some reading on them, not with regards to aircraft, but more
so
to off-roading, as I have a Suzuki Samurai, which I love, but it's
grossly underpowered. The most common upgrade is from the standard
1.3 liter to the 1.6 gasoline engine, but the more adventuresome
have
done a diesel swap. Believe it or not, it's actually even legal
here
in California, the land of the smog police - you just have to get it
signed off by a referee (which, honestly, is apparently not
difficult
if the installation is clean, neat, and looks permanent - they
simply
reclasssify you as diesel, and therefore smog exempt. Pretty sweet!)

But the nice thing about a diesel is the power band is LOW, which is
exactly where we want to be. I will have to do some reading on
that,
I guess. Of course, dollars are always the final deciding answer,
aren't they...?

Jonathan


--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Tri-Q1' <rryan@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome Jonathan,
>
> If money was no object, I believe the 80 HP 2.2L Jabaru would be a
> good choice for a Q1, both for weight to HP and reliability. It
only
> weighs 132# is compact and very fuel efficiant. A friend has one
in
> a Sonex and claims around 3 GPH. Of course I personaly would use a
> 3.3L as it weighs the same as the 4 cyl. VW I am flying with now.
>
> Have you read about the Q1 at Oshkosh with a Diesel engine in it?
> See it in the 'Photos' section.
>
> Ryan