Q1_Aircraft: VNE

The Vne on the Quickie is 150 mph, I believe, correct? The Q200
must be substantially higher, as I have seen some of them flying
close to 200 mph. What makes the difference? Is there a
substantial change in the way the canard or main wing is
constructed? More layers? Better materials? Bigger/thicker/longer
spar?

Of course more Hp will be needed, and that means more fuel burn, but
SURELY the frontal surface area of a Q1 is smaller than a Q200...
How much more would it take? (Any engineers out there?)

So what would it take to build a rocket out of one of these?

(Not saying I'm GOING to, but just thinking out loud...)

And BTW - has anyone constructed a larger fuel tank, or added a
secondary tank? How about baggage or fuel pods? I would think a
secondary tank and a hand transfer pump would be a relatively easy
add-on...

Thanks all!

Jonathan

The VNE of my Q-200 is 220. This is a large increase over the Q-2 VNE. One of
the modifications is control balancing to prevent flutter of your control
surfaces. There are several other reasons VNE is set on aircraft. VNE past the
designed limit can be done very easily in smooth thin air such as in high
altitude conditions. But down low the turbulence is also considered. When you
are flying through turbulence your VNE is designed to keep the flight loads
below the designed structure limits of the airframe. So I guess before I could
answer your question why do you want to increase the VNE?

James

---

Original Message

---

From: jpkuehne
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:28 AM
Subject: [Q1_Aircraft] VNE


The Vne on the Quickie is 150 mph, I believe, correct? The Q200
must be substantially higher, as I have seen some of them flying
close to 200 mph. What makes the difference? Is there a
substantial change in the way the canard or main wing is
constructed? More layers? Better materials? Bigger/thicker/longer
spar?

Of course more Hp will be needed, and that means more fuel burn, but
SURELY the frontal surface area of a Q1 is smaller than a Q200...
How much more would it take? (Any engineers out there?)

So what would it take to build a rocket out of one of these?

(Not saying I'm GOING to, but just thinking out loud...)

And BTW - has anyone constructed a larger fuel tank, or added a
secondary tank? How about baggage or fuel pods? I would think a
secondary tank and a hand transfer pump would be a relatively easy
add-on...

Thanks all!

Jonathan





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

VNE past the designed limit can be done very easily in smooth thin
air such as in high altitude conditions. But down low the turbulence
is also considered. When you are flying through turbulence your VNE
is designed to keep the flight loads below the designed structure
limits of the airframe.

Having been kicked in the tail at every altitude from 0 to 43,000, I
do not believe that you can count on smooth air anywhere!

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...

James,

Thanks for your thoughts.

It's really an academic question more than a means to an end. I think for the
vast majority of owners these airplanes represent an economical way to fly and
have a ball at the same time, and as such, top speed is rarely the most
desirable trait.

I have a Twin Comanche - if I want to do some cross-country traveling, that's
covered. This airplane is stricly a seat-of-the pants experience for me. I
want one to spend as little money and as much time flying as possible. I also
like being/having/doing the unique thing - I'd get a kick out of 'being the only
Quickie out there with a BMW R1100' or 'most unique paint scheme' or some
similar oddball change. (That's again, not to say that I will, but I enjoy
entertaining the thought processes...)

BUT, I can see where someone might say, 'Hmmm - let's see - single seat, low
frontal surface area - what COULD I get out of one of these if my sole goal was
to go as fast as possible?' - you know - 'Damn the torpedoes - full steam
ahead!'

So I was curious what the difference in aircraft structure was that allowed the
Q200 or Dragonfly to do so much more. Is it simply that no-one has gone there
yet? Or is there truly an inherent design limit because of the way the Quickies
are built compared to the others? And so, if I were going to start from
scratch, what kinds of modifications MIGHT I consider? (Shouldn't be too hard
to build a carbon spar, ala the Dragonfly - I have their videos, I have their
plans, I've seen them do it, and I think I'd be capable of doing the same...)

Was it Mike Arnold that built the AR-5? I don't think he had any plans to work
off of building his plane, but sure got a hell of a product at the end. Yes,
that put him in the category of designer/builder/TEST PILOT, and I DON'T think
I'm qualified to go that far. I don't expect a Quickie to do what the AR-5
does, either (we've got a lot more wing/canard surface out there!). But my
question was really is 150 an arbitrary top end (simply not tested higher than
that) or are there radical design differences that make it work for the DF and
Q2/Q200.

(But it could be a lot of fun to get out there and race a little!!!)

Thanks for your patience with me!

Jonathan

---

Original Message

---

From: James Cartwright
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Q1_Aircraft] VNE


The VNE of my Q-200 is 220. This is a large increase over the Q-2 VNE. One of
the modifications is control balancing to prevent flutter of your control
surfaces. There are several other reasons VNE is set on aircraft. VNE past the
designed limit can be done very easily in smooth thin air such as in high
altitude conditions. But down low the turbulence is also considered. When you
are flying through turbulence your VNE is designed to keep the flight loads
below the designed structure limits of the airframe. So I guess before I could
answer your question why do you want to increase the VNE?

James

---

Original Message

---

From: jpkuehne
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:28 AM
Subject: [Q1_Aircraft] VNE

The Vne on the Quickie is 150 mph, I believe, correct? The Q200
must be substantially higher, as I have seen some of them flying
close to 200 mph. What makes the difference? Is there a
substantial change in the way the canard or main wing is
constructed? More layers? Better materials? Bigger/thicker/longer
spar?

Of course more Hp will be needed, and that means more fuel burn, but
SURELY the frontal surface area of a Q1 is smaller than a Q200...
How much more would it take? (Any engineers out there?)

So what would it take to build a rocket out of one of these?

(Not saying I'm GOING to, but just thinking out loud...)

And BTW - has anyone constructed a larger fuel tank, or added a
secondary tank? How about baggage or fuel pods? I would think a
secondary tank and a hand transfer pump would be a relatively easy
add-on...

Thanks all!

Jonathan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry Guys,

this is not completely correct.

VNE is determined by the designer and it is the design speed above
which structural damage or failure can occur if the wrong combination
of events coincides.E.g. Such things include gust loadings, flutter,
wing or surface divergence.

THE FACT THAT OTHERS CHOOSE TO UNDERTAKE RISKS THAT THEY EITHER DO NOT
UNDERSTAND OR DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TO IGNORE WITHOUT ANALYSIS IS NOT
JUSTIFICATION FOR REPEATING SUCH STUPIDITY. The fact that they got
away with it once does not guarentee you will get away with it.

Is the quickie overbuilt? Where is the weakest point? What is the
failure mode? After adding extra weight, how much margin is left?

If you cannot answer those questions before you make the change, do
not do it.

I agree with Ryan on one point, mass balancing the control surfaces
will reduce the risk of one of the failure modes due to overspeeding.

John


--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'Tri-Q1' <rryan@...> wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
> The VNE is a published number set by the designer. This is a speed
> that a design has been tested to, more speed than that is for the
> test pilot (YOU) as to what is safe under the conditions it was
> tested to. A builder that modifies an aircraft or set of plans can
> change/set the numbers because they are the designer now. The
> Quickie being a Rutan design is over built , as are all of his, for
> the mission at hand, why not make it 1 1/2 times as strong and safe
> as advertised, it protects your bacon and wallet at the same time.
>
> I have not compared a set of Q200 plans with the original Quickie
> plans to see where the extra structural strength is. The simple
> answer is that all of the moveable surfaces on the Q200 are balanced
> dynamically. I would bet that Leon knows the answer.
>
> Ryan
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 'jpkuehne' <jpkuehne@> wrote:
> >
> > The Vne on the Quickie is 150 mph, I believe, correct? The Q200
> > must be substantially higher, as I have seen some of them flying
> > close to 200 mph. What makes the difference? Is there a
> > substantial change in the way the canard or main wing is
> > constructed? More layers? Better materials?
> Bigger/thicker/longer
> > spar?
> >
> > Of course more Hp will be needed, and that means more fuel burn,
> but
> > SURELY the frontal surface area of a Q1 is smaller than a Q200...
> > How much more would it take? (Any engineers out there?)
> >
> > So what would it take to build a rocket out of one of these?
> >
> > (Not saying I'm GOING to, but just thinking out loud...)
> >
> > And BTW - has anyone constructed a larger fuel tank, or added a
> > secondary tank? How about baggage or fuel pods? I would think a
> > secondary tank and a hand transfer pump would be a relatively easy
> > add-on...
> >
> > Thanks all!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>

John,

The Q1 does not have mass balanced control surfaces. Is it worth doing,
and if so, how would you go about it?

Martin Burns

G-BKSE Q1 Scotland
(still trying to fit that Kohler engine)

________________________________

From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. [mailto: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ]
On Behalf Of JohntenHave
Sent: 06 November 2006 08:46
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: [Q1_Aircraft] Re: VNE



Sorry Guys,

this is not completely correct.

VNE is determined by the designer and it is the design speed above
which structural damage or failure can occur if the wrong combination
of events coincides.E.g. Such things include gust loadings, flutter,
wing or surface divergence.

THE FACT THAT OTHERS CHOOSE TO UNDERTAKE RISKS THAT THEY EITHER DO NOT
UNDERSTAND OR DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TO IGNORE WITHOUT ANALYSIS IS NOT
JUSTIFICATION FOR REPEATING SUCH STUPIDITY. The fact that they got
away with it once does not guarentee you will get away with it.

Is the quickie overbuilt? Where is the weakest point? What is the
failure mode? After adding extra weight, how much margin is left?

If you cannot answer those questions before you make the change, do
not do it.

I agree with Ryan on one point, mass balancing the control surfaces
will reduce the risk of one of the failure modes due to overspeeding.

John

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
<mailto:Q1_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> , 'Tri-Q1' wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
> The VNE is a published number set by the designer. This is a speed
> that a design has been tested to, more speed than that is for the
> test pilot (YOU) as to what is safe under the conditions it was
> tested to. A builder that modifies an aircraft or set of plans can
> change/set the numbers because they are the designer now. The
> Quickie being a Rutan design is over built , as are all of his, for
> the mission at hand, why not make it 1 1/2 times as strong and safe
> as advertised, it protects your bacon and wallet at the same time.
>
> I have not compared a set of Q200 plans with the original Quickie
> plans to see where the extra structural strength is. The simple
> answer is that all of the moveable surfaces on the Q200 are balanced
> dynamically. I would bet that Leon knows the answer.
>
> Ryan
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
<mailto:Q1_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> , 'jpkuehne' wrote:
> >
> > The Vne on the Quickie is 150 mph, I believe, correct? The Q200
> > must be substantially higher, as I have seen some of them flying
> > close to 200 mph. What makes the difference? Is there a
> > substantial change in the way the canard or main wing is
> > constructed? More layers? Better materials?
> Bigger/thicker/longer
> > spar?
> >
> > Of course more Hp will be needed, and that means more fuel burn,
> but
> > SURELY the frontal surface area of a Q1 is smaller than a Q200...
> > How much more would it take? (Any engineers out there?)
> >
> > So what would it take to build a rocket out of one of these?
> >
> > (Not saying I'm GOING to, but just thinking out loud...)
> >
> > And BTW - has anyone constructed a larger fuel tank, or added a
> > secondary tank? How about baggage or fuel pods? I would think a
> > secondary tank and a hand transfer pump would be a relatively easy
> > add-on...
> >
> > Thanks all!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]