Q1_Aircraft: Hi all, have had a Q1 in storage for quite some time..

Hi all,

I am new to this forum, I have a Q1 in storage for quite some time,
and will ...weeelll..someday, complete my dream.

In the meanwhile I am trying to keep up as much as possible on the
news about this aircraft.

I can see that today, as well as in the years back, this aircraft have
always had an 'engine controversy'.

Myself, I had the good luck of having a friend in the small engine
business, and have had via him, a continous update on possible
alternative powerplants.

I do believe though that the Onan is the best choice, however, not the
Onan that originally came with the kit.

The engine that came with the kit is a 48 cu inch engine, with
advertised HP of 18-20 hp. The Kitmanufacturer also sold shaved heads
and advertised this mod to achieve 22.5 HP.

What puzzles me is why the kitmanufacturer didnt modify and regrinded
the camshaft, a significant portion of power could have been gained
that way.

This 48 cu inch Onan engine is not the best choice, as Onan had in
it's inventory a 60 Cu inch version of the same engine.

The 60 cu inch version is classified in it's standard configuration as
a 24 HP engine, more torque and flatter powercurve.

The outside dimensins of the 60 Cu inch Onan is the same except for
the with, where the 60 Cu Inch version is about 1.3/4 inch wider, than
the 48 cu inch engine.

I got hold of a a copy of the 60 cu inch engine, and found out that
the bolt pattern is the same on the 48 as the 60 Cu inch version, so
all attachments can be done per the plans.

I do believe that the engine can easily be tweaked to produce a couple
of more horsepower pretty easily, and should be able to produce 26-27
HP very reliably, without making the engine too much of
an 'experimental' engine.

The 60 Cu inch engine is called Onan 224.

These engines are no longer made, Onan is now bought up by another
company 'Linamar' and when looking on sites where small engines are
sold, the mesage 'no longer in stock' is coming up more and more
frequently. I still however se the Onan logo, always at Cummins
dealers.

The 60 Cu inch 224 engine was used in more high power situations like
in mobile sawplants, and agricultural applications. Some bigger
lawnmowers used them also, but when looking at those applications
today, other engines are recommended as a sustitute instead.

Today mainly V twins, with topvalve and in many occasions Fuel
injections are used to replace the flatheads for better fueleconomy.

In flying a Q1, with it's standard fueltank, the endurance of the
fueltank compared with the endurance of your own bladder still gives
the Q1 an edge, so the choice of a flat head is still a very viable
option.

A flat head can never drop a valve in the engine, and thus makes it
inherently a very safe engine.

60 Cu inch is about ONE liter displacement, plenty.

If Looking at it from an efficiency viewpoint, the least efficient is
a two stoke. A choice gladly choosen by many.

A top valve engine is more efficient than a flat head, but not by much
compared with how inefficient a two stroke is, so the efficient factor
is when it comes to a Q1 pretty meaningless to discuss, unless you
plan to do some kind of record flight of some sort. Rest of the time
you just want to have fun flying.

The hard part will proably be to get hold of a good sample of this 60
cu inch engine., Get hold of parts for restoring it, and make it new
again.

I did deal with an Onan dealer when I was restoring mine, and found
out that they like Mercedes was charging tripple for everything. Any
part I needed was ridiculously priced.

A Q1 in the 26-27 HP range will probably be as close as you can come
to the original intended design purpose, using the original engine,
and original plans.

The 48 Cu Inch engine, have as I understand it, racked up the most
hours with the Q1, and have proven that the engine itself is a very
reliable engine.

From what I have been reading from reports though, is that the 48 Cu
inch engine is an aaaaalmost there engine.

As I see it, all the positive attributes with the 48 inch engine, I
want to keep those, get my 60 Cu inches, get that extra power that
will make all the difference in the world, and use it to all the
possible advantage I can.

As a prop I have an electrical adjustable IVO prop, and a custom made
spinner back plate, where the collector plate, connected to the props
electrical motor, is epoxied in, as an integral part of the backplate.
The brushes, ride on the back of the spinner backplate.

As I said, this project have been in storage for a long number of
years, my job involves very much travelling and it seems more and more
that this is something I need to complete when my retirement is coming
up.

Still I can dream about it, right???

Roger

PS, Diesel intriques me, the Diesel Q1 in the photos, seem to have a
home made engine. Mighty nice piece, but a multi Dollar project. The
engie seems to be a 2 stroke, as far as I could see, I might be wrong,
but the pics were not so detailed.

Lot of covers around the engine.

If this is a 4 stroke, Diesel, they probably have one of the most
efficient flying things in existence.

The engine seems to be very well thought out, 6 cylinders, gives a
very large spread on the extra hard Diesel power pulses.

Who will be first with a 25-30 HP 18 cyl,2 row, aircooled very small
Radial engine ?

Is there anyone in this group that have this Diesel Q1?

Do you (or does anyone) have a short list of what can be done to increase the P224G / LX990 / T260G / OL24 (24HP Onan)?

I am thinking -

Increase compression ala QAC (Shaved heads)
Add dual ignition
Add turbocharger (either overboost or normalize)
Change carburetor
Add electronic ignition

Does anyone know of the design parameters to create a RAM air chamber? I know on the Lyc IO360, Lycoming used 1 inch of RAM air to replicate the fact the intake is facing the flow of air. I recall it added 5% (10 HP).

I think that a properly designed chamber may be add even more. While this would be dependent on airspeed, it should help during cruise.

Finally, has anyone actually installed the Onan 24HP engine on the Q1? I am off to Q-List and Q-Performance to see what they say over there.

Well, not that I've ever seen it done - or that this engine has the lower end to take it, but how about a small supercharger, or even better, a small tubocharger?

I've never seen anyone do it though.... (Class, anyone, anyone?)

I've got similar dreams - I really like the potential in opposed McCulloch 4 cylinder 72hp 2-strokes - very popular in the gyro world, but there you can autorotate if your engine quits. And most people seem to think that these engines are just time-bombs waiting to happen. There's one guy out there flying a Hummelbird with one (Skeet Wyman, out of Apple VAlley, CA) but i haven't heard much from him in the last 2 or 3 years.

Not that I'm swimming in cash, but i am VERY tempted to put one together, buy some dyno time, and really see what it will give me back in terms of fuel consumption, horsepower, and RPM. I'd love to slow it down a little (don't want a prop reduction drive) and if it can make decent power (35-55 hp) at something in the neighborhood of 3000 rpms, that might be more tempting...

Feel free to come join us on the Quickie list on Yahoo as well - there have been some spirited discussions over the years about options in engines. You're absolutely right - the world really is waiting for a GOOD 35 hp option...

The 60 cu in engine probably wasn't available in 1975 in reliable quantities or at a reasonable cost. I can't imagine it would be much heavier than the 42 cu in engine. (Edit, 1 May 2011: Actually it was significantly heavier than the original engine ...)

But really, there are better candidates around now. I've been looking recently at the Suzuki 3-cylinder 4-stroke engines used in their small car range and they seem to fit the bill nicely. The F5A at 31hp would be brilliant.

Car engines improve with age. Industrial engines are designed simply for slogging reliability, but only if you leave them alone as the manufacturer intended. Hot-rodding simply doesn't work here, as QAC found to their chagrin.