Post it on Barnstormers and the Q-List.

Thank you. Glad you were able to get something from it. It took many trial and errors over the years to get the Quickie to where it is today which is a reliable cross country airplane. It’s lots of fun to fly and I really enjoy visiting with curious people. Thanks again.

Before building my Q-200, the only thing I had built was a garage.

Thank you Bill. It took many years of trail and error plus reading and listening to get the airplane to where it is today. It is a really great flying platform and I can't go anywhere without having to explain it to others. The questions people come up with and the blank stares is the fun part.

Turn your sound on.

Owners Manual states the original prototype N77Q was STA43.3 empty. And the allowable range was STA46.5 to STA49.5 at low weight and STA 47.7-49.5 at gross weight of 480Lbs. The pilot sits at STA55 and the fuel tank (lower seat) is at STA43. The pilots headrest is at STA78 and the firewall is at STA15 for reference. This information came from the $10 owners manual available from Quickheads and Canardforum.

They are completely different.

They are completely different.

On an iPhone, it can me made so loud I have to turn it down to 40%. (This might be due to built in volume compensation).

Seems somewhere around 88# firewall fwd. Prop at 3-4#. That should be somewhat close. Are you building a Q?

@keithwelsh4040 ...I'm actually installing a Robin EH72FI which comes in at 94lbs..a tad heavier but should be okay. I just bought one that needed an engine, this engine is fuel injection 28hp so I'm hoping it'll work.

Penzoil air cooled two stroke oil.

Yes.

15:27

Great, it's a lot of fun and you'll learn a lot. Remember the Q owners were a lot younger when they built their planes!

Q1 prototype was 245lb. Customer Polls showed 250-315lb, with an average of 297.5lb empty. The Onan was around 120lb stock. They removed the flywheel, starter, and steel brackets per QAC newsletters, they claim the engine weighed 88Lbs as supplied. But it never ever made 22.5hp.

@@TheJustinJ Thank you JJ. The 29% weight range seems large for a kit aircraft. I see why the Onan is derided. A half VW seems like a good replacement engine.

@@jiroyamamoto2878 This is not really a "kit aircraft" it was entirely built from scratch by the original builders from sheets of foam, rolls of fiberglass and jugs of epoxy. There is wide variation in the empty weight people achieved. Most were never completed. Those that were, many performed poorly. The engine has a low power to weight ratio. Its about half the power to weight of a typical aero engine. It also appears to be somewhat unreliable. Not the engine itself, but the installation of it was not ideal, I would say. Part of the issue is the extremely light structure construction which is prone to vibration. But mostly it sounds like the cooling system was the issue. Seeing they removed the flywheel and fan and shrouds, and attempted to cool the engine by free stream airflow. Its not Onans fault for the overheating. This same engine ran fine for many decades in riding lawn mowers, completely buried in cut grass and dust. So, the cooling design of the Q1 was probably the issue. And the lack of power was really a matter of selecting an 18hp engine that could vary by several HP from the manufacterer, the old SAE rating allowed them to mark-up engine ratings 17.65%, (only had to reach 85% of its rated power to qualify) and they cheated even more since testing was performed without air filter or exhausts. Leading to "Gross HP" rating, because each mower or RV mfgr would install it however they wanted with whatever exhaust they desired. Gross Hp and actual net Hp are two different animals. QAC claimed they Dynoed the engine, but there was no commercial engine dyno in the world in 1977 that could differentiate a single Hp or two. So these things probably only make 15~16hp in many cases, every HP loss from ideal would result in 70fpm less climb rate, and it only climbed at 420fpm at sea level, if everything worked right, and it was built as light as the originals 243.5lbs (none were). Adding +54lbs on average, 297.5 vs 243.5; would cost 42fpm giving a corrected climb rate of only 383fpm at sea level, not at density altitude... which would quickly become only 200-some fpm. This is not Onans fault. Its a factor all low powered aircraft suffer. It must be built light, and any components that end up significantly over weight must be rejected and built again, better. Also, Burt Rutan himself said that he designed the VariEZ for the VW engine, and stayed that he "found out that Two VWs were less reliable than one continental" after two catastrophic in flight failures. He re-designed it for the O-200 and never designed another airplane for a VW motor. The Onan is fine if its cooled right, and that takes proper baffling and air exit design. It also must meet its designated HP rating, which can be determined by static RPM, climb rate vs takeoff weight, and maximum speed and RPM at that speed. The engine should be tweaked to obtain rated static RPM, after whatever issue is resolved the prop may need to be modified by trimming an inch or so to get the revs up into the power-band of the engine. This takes a little technical know-how, but can be done by a savvy builder.

@@TheJustinJ Thank you for all the information. I suspect the half VW would make about twice as much power for the same weight. I always thought the Q1 was a kit.

@@TheJustinJ From Wikipedia, "Jewett and Sheehan formed the Quickie Aircraft Corporation to produce and sell complete aircraft kits. Production began in June 1978, and by 1980 the Corporation had sold 350 kits. Other firms were granted marketing rights, and ultimately some 1,000 Quickie kits were sold"

Subscribe to the Q-list. There is a real nice one for sale right now. www.Q-list.groups.io

Hi Justin, Thank you for the info. Great to know details about Pyrex. All the sales person told me was that it should have been used all along. Still clear as a bell. Thanks again

Yes I do work in the petroleum industry.

I thought so, 👍 nice.

IMHO a properly baffled O-200 does not need an oil cooler.

I don't know if you realize just how small and light these things are. They are almost all extinct now and rate to see how tiny they are. Its smaller and lighter than a typical off-road dirt bike. That airframe only needs 16-18hp to fly. 22-25hp to have reasonable climb performance. And anything near 50hp is going to yank it around like an RC model. If you put 150hp in it, it will disintegrate, and you will die.

The Quickie Q1 Onan firewall forward engine installation is given as 88lbs.

Canards don’t ride any differently in my experience. The configuration is typically employed on designs optimized for cruise speed which means higher wing loading than most other light GA aircraft. It definitely handles turbulence better than average, as a result of that wing loading but I don’t attribute that to the planform.

Matt..put the T-tail mod on & take the springs off of your elevator trim control. You might just change your mind!(" I don’t attribute that to the planform".

Hi Martin, I understand your comment. Most if not all us Onan drivers have had that same thought at one time or another. Many engines have been tried over the years with very limited results. Most Quickies still fly w/ the Onan. Other than the rather anemic rate of climb the airplane performs quite well and is a viable cross country platform cruising at 105 mph on 2gph. Mine has around 430 hrs and has flown from IN to IL, IA, KS, MO, OSH etc…and another with nearly 1000 hrs and has flown from IA to Sun n Fun, IL, MO, KS, OK, OSH etc…. The biggest limiting factor has not only been the hp but dealing with the hi operating temps. CHT’s would run at redline and the oil temps at 240. My oil would turn black at 10 hrs and the piston rings would be gone at 20 hrs. In the early days it was only a pattern airplane at best. Until, after much trial n error, the oil temps now rarely get over 190 and CHT’s 350 in climb and 275 in cruise. In many ways the Quickie is a miracle design but not for everyone. I’ve had callers want it for commutes, add landing lights, additional instrumentation, modify the airframe and operate from high elevations etc… These were tough conversations. I’ve always known its limitations and never expected more than it was capable of. I’ve enjoyed the plane for many years and it is very fun to fly and take to events. Keith

Two things that have brought oil temps in the 170-190 range are 1) put a 2.5 qt deep sump 2) bought a good size oil cooler with a temp sensor+fan. I mounted it outside the engine on the belly. At 235f the fan kicks on and stays on till temp goes to 230. ( I kept the original tiny oil cooler sitting near the engine)

Hi Martin, From the video you can see the heat sink that was welded to the bottom of the oil pan, not sure how much it helped. Between the lower cowl flap, the front grill and the baffling forcing air only around oil pan is only when I saw the big change in oil temps. The oil color does not get black anymore. And that's a good thing. And I'm sure adding a filter didn't hurt either; which was done many years ago.

I installed new cylinders that were flowed, 9:1 pistons, electronic ignition. That increased horsepower from 100 to something around 115 - 120 likely. I also installed a prop with a lower pitch, made some aero improvements and a much lighter battery. I think all of that added up to much improved climb rate. Example of that, if I pitch down and allow the rpms to build to 2750, after the initial climb, I can climb from 1000-6000 feet MSL at 150mph indicated doing 900fpm.

I can, and do, open my canopy a bit when I taxi. It is a simple matter to achieve a 1 to 1 1/2 inch gap which results in great ventilation. On the canopy ............ A friend of mine had engine failure (in a different airplane), but one which had a forward sliding canopy. Carb ice was suspected but not confirmed. He was seen to ditch in a lake, very close to shore. Of course, the airplane tipped forward with engine down, and started slowly to sink. He could not push the canopy forward because of the water pressure, until it was too late. He did not survive. There may have been other contributors to this sad event but the canopy was one.

@@petermeszaros1770 I see what you mean. Sad lesson for your friend.

I built a 2 seat amphibian called an Aventura’s 2 so I had about 300 hours in that before I sold it, the rest is DA40, Cherokee 160, 172, and a few hours here and there in about 15 other types.

The airplane was a little slower than it is now, when I did the long flight, as the engine was stock and airframe was a little dirtier. I was cruising at 155mph burning 4-5gph. Altitude was anywhere from 8500 - 12500 depending on clouds and terrain. I just held 2500 rpm the whole time so whatever power setting that would work out to for an O-200 at those altitudes. I was not running lean of peak. O-200’s have poor fuel distribution on the best of days so LOP isn’t an option unless you install fuel injection.

Absolutely not a beginner's aircraft. Get your private pilot's ticket first, get a hundred hours, then get a Quickie.

Hi Robert, I’m sorry for the volume. Didn’t think about the distance from the phone being an issue till seeing it with everyone else. Fortunately it seemed to be better while holding the phone. This was my first time doing this, won’t make the mistake again. Sorry for the inconvenience.

@@keithwelsh4040 thats cool Keith. As u said the volume picked up. ❤ this little aircraft. 👀👀 like an insect . Burt Rutan certainly was different in his approach. Pity there are no more kits available or plans .