Thanks Lex for your contributions into this interesting subject addressing the expiration of the design in the lower speed range. obviously a very good pilot seeks to fly in such a way as to not go close to the extremes either too slow or too fast. However having said that I'm trying to explore technology of the absolute limits of what the design will achieve.
Take it from the top of the design I think it is fair to say that the canard is the area of most interest when reaching the lower speed in as much as there is a predictability of the stall speed in relation to the angle of attack. The original design was to achieve a fallback stick approach which has the effect of flaps (collaborators?)giving maximum lift of the canard and let the speed reduce until a landing is achieved.
This parameter has of course been changed with the introduction of the T-Tail which effectively has the capacity of changing the angle of attack. The introduction of a reflex arrangement for the main wing provides the effect of flaps (flapper-ailerons?)both of which provide additional lift which introduces new numbers into the calculations concerning the weight of the plane which in turn has an effect on the slowest possible speed prior to anything stalling.
Of Course these various gizmos not only add to the pressure but provide the ability to manipulate the centre of pressure and provide a greater degree of control over and above any conventional plane. as we are the Q2 type enthusiasts it follows that we want to explore these "advantages" to the fullest degree.
I am however having difficulty in establishing any reliable design information addressing these issues of centre of gravity and the centre of wing pressure which is a prerequisite to expanding upon the original design even further than the already addition of t-Tail and reflexor arrangements.
So far most of the comments have been centred around the Q2 style is designed to go fast. Granted that economic speed may have been the forefront in the minds eye of the designer I think we can also say the same of any fast plane and the faster they go the more difficulty they have slowing down to land.
The driving force for those who would like these planes to fly slower surrounds the nature of the landing strips available. Funnily enough this plane is still at West Melton near Christchurch which I hope to take delivery of the coming weeks and bring it up to Auckland. The previous owners seem to have had no difficulty flying in and out of West Melton and it does seem that the same is true of the other Q2s around that area. In fact most airstrips would be comparatively short by your standards and certainly less than 1800 feet in all but exceptional airstrips which even then would be much less than 3000 feet.
The problem seems to lie in increasing wing pressure by increasing either wingspan or the cord or both. Going back to the high-speed planes and the original spirit of these twin wings which is to fly fast while not forgetting the necessity to land we would not really want to change too much to the wings themselves as that will alter the high-speed characteristics which means we should do what high-speed planes do and that is design and built wings that change the shape. Another member suggested Fowler flaps.
Fowler flaps, which is a doable solution, seems to be the way to go.
I doubt very much of anyone has incorporated fowler flaps into a Q2 but of course it has the added complexity of maintaining their control service function particularly in the main wing. As a mechanical design engineer I've already thought about this and I don't think it is a very difficult problem.
The outstanding question of course is back to the actual calculations of wing area, angle of the flaps and suchlike in order to make such a project worthwhile.