Hey Kim, I built one of the first Q2s - N82SC - and was the first customer to fly with the non-laminar flow carbon fiber canard. It was my experience that resulted in them designing the reflexer. Also was the first to put a speed brake on it, something the factory later did as well. A couple of years later I turned it into a Tri-Q. I hope to make a video some day. Hope you don't mind me referring your EXCELLENT video. Wish I'd taken 1/10 of the pics you did. Thanks!
Great post from you, and Thanks for your compliments re mine.... Of course you may reference it. Meanwhile, Thanks for your innovation w the reflexer. It worked!! Well!! Best, Kim Singleton N729KS; N201TY
All that work and dedication and just 29 comments - that's RU-vid for you. I'm an ancient wrinkly engineer of the old school and what looks right is right and that plane of yours looks perfect.
Hi JP; Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, building the Q2 was an amazing adventure. (If nothing else, I'm still really good at fiberglass layups!) I got lucky; my Q2 performed well.... Kim
Built on one for a couple years. Had to sell because I was getting married and financially I was not able to sustain it. Absolutely loved everything about it. Hand cut all the templates out of aluminum......
Hi, Kim! Tom Stover here…a voice from your past! I clicked on your video not knowing who had made it! Very nice to hear your voice and see the story of your Q2. All the best…
Hi Tom; This is a belated reply to your kind comments re the Q2. I'm lucky to have continued flying, now in a J model Mooney. I appreciate all the work that went into getting this plane certified, but there are lots of times I wish it were Experimental, so I could do the mods that would make it a better machine. Oh well; for now will just wish you Safe Landings (and good eclipse viewing about 10 days away!) Kim Singleton
I helped my uncle build a Vari-Eze, starting in 1978 and completed in 1980. It was truly an amazing aircraft and a tribute to the genius of Burt Rutan. What you could do on 100 hp was fascinating.
i am a big Q2 Fan....i think those are the neatest little airplanes .... i looked, and there is a small company in Minnesota keeping the Q2 kit dream accessible for people.. i would absolutely love one of those planes, but i would go with an HKS 700E engine, and put a large 12V LiFePO4 up front, behind the engine, in attempt to re-trim.
This brings back memories; thanks Kim. I built N82QQ in 1981-82 and flew it from Southern Cal to Oshkosh for the 1982 airshow. It wouldn't climb over 6,000 MSL so we barely made it over the continental divide next to Interstate Hwy 10 near Deming, NM. The engine broke in Wichita Falls, TX. With help from local mechanics, we pulled the heads and had a valve job done at the local VW Bug engine shop. Then put it back together and flew NE to Oshkosh. In one rain squall, the airflow over the canard was reduced by raindrops so much that it wouldn't hold altitude. I did a turn out of the rain into dry air so it would keep flying. In Kansas it wouldn't hold altitude due to bugs on the canard so I landed and scraped every bug off the canard. The airfoil on the canard was super sensitive; bugs and rain would reduce lift enough to make it descend even with aft stick. The Piper Cub had a 40 foot wingspan and a 65 horse engine. The Q2 had a 17 foot wingspan and a 65 horse VW-derived engine. It needed either a bigger wing or a bigger engine. Landings were very hot, about 95 Kts with a long rollout. Although taildraggers like to have the tailwheel pasted on the ground with back stick, this wasn't possible because no elevator. Brake application would make it pitch down on the runway, so it took a long time to stop basically by waiting. Because the wheels were at the end of the canard, 17 feet out, any yaw or touchdown on one wheel would make it try to spin around on the runway, at best groundlooping. In flight, the Q2 was unstable in pitch and roll; hands-off flying not possible. The elevons were near the CG, not at the end of an empennage, so it was pitch heavy. I sold N82QQ to the Los Angeles dealer for Quickie while I was at Oshkosh '82. I never wanted to set foot in it ever again. A C-172 was a much better airplane, more responsive, climbed better, took off and landed shorter. That guy crashed it at Corona airport. My buddy who built a Q2 crashed it but survived. The president of Quickie Aircraft, Tom Jewett, crashed his (that made the cover of Popular Science mag) but survived. He crashed his next experimental airplane but didn't survive. Great guy.
Wow; thanks for the stories! "Yes" to 'hands-off flying was not possible' and the fast flat approaches for landing. Still, you took your Q2 into tougher situations than I ever experienced in daytime, dry-air, mid-west flying. Those were the days of being young (immortal?) and frugal. I'm back in certified planes now; a 1977 Mooney J.
@@kpsingleton You made the wise choice. There are old pilots and bold pilots but no old-bold pilots. Mooneys are outstanding. With homebuilts, there is a divergence between the image and the reality. Like marrying a model/actress, there are steep prices to be paid that aren't apparent before the marriage. At 23 years old, I believed the Q2 PR when it appeared on the cover of my trusted Popular Science magazine. That same aircraft crashed and was destroyed but that fact was never advertised. One of the Quickie partners, Tom Jewett, built another homebuilt which he crashed and died in on July 2, 1982. I was at Mojave airport when that happened. Another buddy of mine, Dan Mortensen, crashed his single-seat canard while racing at Reno. He lived but the plane was in bits. I am proud of anyone who actually built a Q2 (not dreamed about it), flew it, then put it away as they found that reality is divergent from PR. It's the Old Pilot maturity.
@@outwiththem Some people have put tricycle gear on them, which would help with the yawing moment on landing. The Q1 was a single-seat, 16 horsepower engine, and a 16'8" wingspan. Q2 was a mod on the Q1 but not an upscaling. The Q2 had a 16'8" wingspan (no change) and a 65 horse Revmaster engine. For comparison, a two-seat Cessna 152 has a 105 horse engine and a 33 foot wingspan. Hmm, which one will climb better? Yep, the 152. The Q2 had much less span and wing area and engine than a C-152 so it had to generate more speed to fly. That's why it needs long runways to take off and land. The Q2 also has an exotic laminar airfoil that loses significant lift in rain or when bugs hit it. Sure is pretty to look at, though. I later bought a C-152 with a taildragger Sparrowhawk conversion and a 125 horse engine. It was a much superior plane than my Q2, easier to fly, landed shorter, climbed way better, more cockpit room.
Absolutely fantastic! What a Beautiful plane! Your organization, attention to detail, your drive and perseverance certainly paid off, that is a ONE-of-a-kind INCREDIBLY unique machine!
Really enjoyed this "record" of construction Kim. Thanks for producing it for us. A friend and I were considering buying a finished Q2 in the late 80s. We had the owner fly to our location and he took us up in it. It was kick in the pants but we couldn't reach a satisfactory deal for both ends of the deal. We did pay his expenses both ways as we had agreed to do. I really enjoyed the feel of the plane. I was a relatively new pilot at the time w/ maybe 300 to 400 hrs so it was really exciting. I finished my career three months ago (May of 23) w/ 40 years as a pilot and 22 as a Flight Instructor and about 3,400 hours. I've flown a TravelAir, a Stearman (through aileron rolls), an AT-6 (also through rolls), a Diamond DA-20, Remos Light Sport and I have .8 hr Goodyear blimp time and 2.5 hrs of Rotor time. The Q2 was as exciting to fly as any of those listed.
Awesome story! I’ve built aircraft since 1999 when I got my 1st aircraft job at 19, for Beech, then Raytheon, and eventually Beechcraft. Later on to Boeing, Spirit Aerosystems, and finished at GE Aviation before changing careers. Thank you for showing this, let’s me remember my past life. I’m building the Quickie myself, as Rutan was an idol of mine with the Starship. Thank you so much.
That's amazing that you worked in these companies. It must be quite an experience building some thing for yourself. 😊 I'd like to build one. & am sitting with plans. They are copies of a plane that plane. But dont have a a licence number or legitimate registration for them. Can a person. Purchase a legitimate registration number?
Nice story and a well-done plane. I built an RV6A in the 90s, but before that in the 80s I got a ride in the original Q2 from Dick Sheehan in Mojave. An amazing plane - with a few quirks. Thanks for the memories.
What an awesome project and may I say, your documentation is wonderful!Everything about this video seems so soft and nostalgic but so exciting and inspiring at the same time.
Thanks for telling us about your Q200. :) Very fond memories as a kid watching one being built by an absolute craftsman. It was absolute perfection of form and functionality, and won Concourse that year. My Uncle built one during the eighties in Melbourne Australia. I had to laugh at towing it to the airport, he had to do the same thing at 5:00am when there was little traffic. He was stopped by Police, WTF??? Once he explained, he had a free escort for the rest of the trip. Lol. I had some time at the controls when it was finished, my one and only flight, it was sooo cool to fly! However, in the late stages of final, wasn't so fun. I'd been a Pitts passenger a number of times before hand, but this was something else! Going like a bat outta hell, at not a breath less than 80 kts over the fence, with your arse just off the ground, on some tiny wheels with no give, only a bit of flex from the front canard, you had to be 'On it'. We touched down ok, but it wasn't going to stop! I remember thinking, 'I haven't seen this far down the runway before...' This was definitely not an aeroplane for country strips! It was this aspect of the aeroplane that contributed to his fatal accident while flying cross country. The amazing fuel economy and speed of running the O-200, allowed him to travel great distances, and into unexpected weather situations at a very quick rate as well. 160 kts at about 8 GPH in cruise if I remember correctly.... My Uncle was caught with closing weather around him, forced to come lower and lower due to cloud and rain, and ended up circling a paddock for about 45 minutes at a few hundred feet, according to the owner of the property he was above, nestled in the NSW Blue Mountains. He was an instrument rated pilot, however the aircraft was only equiped as VFR, and had no artificial horizon fitted, as it's not a mandatory instrument for VFR operations. A dollar saving that cost him much more... He tried flying the Q200 on 'Limited Panel' under the hood, however it only lasted about a minute before everything 'toppled'. Piecing together what his options were at the time, my Uncle would have looked at the paddock below to assess his chances of a forced landing, which would have been close to zero, knowing the speeds, the distance needed, with a wet soggy soft soil/grass surface. An almost 100% chance of destroying the aircraft. The owner of the property commented, '..after circling for about 45 minutes, he flew straight into the cloud and wasn't seen again.' The offical investigation concluded that the aircraft at the time of impact, had been performing a high G turn at full power, whereupon the left front canard struck a tree, causing the fuselage to split open along it's length, the occupants being thrown clear of the impact zone. My surviving Uncle, part of the rescue party at the crash site after the aircraft had been missing for 3 days, commented, 'The side of the aeroplane had been opened up like a sardine can, it was just peeled open. There really wan't much left of an aeroplane to sit in. They'd been thrown out of the aeroplane at some stage of the crash...' While the Q200 cannot be held responsible for the accident occurring in the first place, it's landing performance may have lead to making a decision to press on, rather than land in a paddock. Looking at the survivability potential of the aircraft after the incident as well, our fears seemed to be realised before the crash, there was absolutely no strength in the structure to sustain any impact from a rough/forced landing. Landing on a wet boggy surface may have had a similar result, of ripping the aeroplane apart. ??? A 'No Win' situation maybe? An awesome aeroplane, way ahead of it's time! That was Burt Rutan :) VH-OIO RIP
Fantastic, accurate, and way understated! It shows the dedication, work, and confidence required to build and fly this aviation jewel (and hints at many of the struggles). Not mentioned was how difficult it was to complete the project in these early days just when the kits were released. The builders' community had not fully formed, and many of the engineering quirks of the Q's had not been identified, no less addressed. Some people died in this ignorance, and everyone got a good scare at one time or another. Today the problem is reversed: now there are few experts active, and liability concerns dampen the desire to share solutions, so much of the art of building and flying these is fading away.
It was a pleasure watching your story. I can imagine your first flight with so much of an odds of mind, at least until you are flying in the air. You seem to be very brave, your belief in engineering is marvelous and you did it; I wholeheartedly admire your efforts to construct this great build, now i am building one for myself too. Thanks for the video.
@@nealfulco9399 Thanks, had not realized. I'd just assumed was a Rutan design too, as Quickie Aircraft Corp was based in Mojave. Reading Garry LeGare designed the Q2 in Canada.
Thanks for polishing up the old video footage and making this video. You did a great job!!! I will someday build or buy a Q2... thanks for keeping my dreams alive!!
Hi Andrew; Wow, it has been a Long Time. So glad you had a chance to experience the Q2, and that we could share it. Hope life continues to treat you well! Kim
Awesome undertaking. I recently acquired a Q-kit. I'm getting ready to match the shells and buy a couple billets of foam for new flight controls and wings. I also have to stabilize and repair the carbon spars.
If you can get any information or measurements regarding the carbon spars please share this information. I don’t think anybody has access to spare to share this information.
Since about 1963 I have been flying Model Airplanes. First C/L then in '76 got my first Radio, been flying R/C ever since. I Design, Build, and Fly. I learned a lot from watching your Build. Many of the same building style you used I use in building my planes. My planes are powered with 2 cycle Engines. Running the engines is just part of what I like. Most have full 3 axis control. Couple are Yank and Bank, 2 channel ,ail & elv. What engines could be used? Horsepower requirements? Prop sizes, dia & pitch? This airplane has a rep of being able to really go fast while sipping fuel. Thank You for a well done video You going to continue with more on this "Quickie".
Beautiful aircraft, amazing lines. Job well done. Just curious, does anyone know what the maximum speed, cruising speed, and stall speeds are? I see that it was a 100 mph landing, probably due to smaller wing surface issues.
If wings can be fixed on the body by hinges and under it supported by suspension and amortization springs system .it can simplify the adjustment and prevent cracking which can lead to extreme situation . and more comfortable in landing time . But i like this system first it was planed and constructed by some Russian student as diploma work .Form was different more slender .
Please give me your overall view, pros and cons, etc. of the Revmaster engine. I am going to be using a 2300 on my Sonex and always like to hear from the experience of high-hour users. Thanks.
Burt Rutan certainly was way ahead of the 👏👏👏⏰⏰'s Love ur Q2 story. Fabulous 1st aircraft. Gr8 👀👀 flybird. . Q's 4U. Can u still purchase the planes 4 this aircraft for the 200hp engine. If so would u mind steering me in the right direction. Thx 4 sharing.
Great! I remember reading in early 80' the story of a gentleman, living in central USA, who built a Quickie Q2 to visit his sons on the west coast. I don't remember which magasine it was... Maybe Kitplanes, if anybody remember these two articles please let me know. Thanks
Hi, FlyMeAirplane.... I gave the airplane to a aviation buddy, but deregistered for legal/liability reasons. I don't want even a glimmer of "manufacturer liability" if a subsequent pilot has an issue....
Seems like that thing would be a good candidate for electric conversion: super low drag and efficient.. Would it handle the extra weight of a battery, with some reinforcements?
It makes more sense to have the landing gear supporting the wings, because fuel is heavy. When landing gear supports the fuselage, the wings are flexed downwards by the fuel, and when you transition to flight, the wings are flexed upwards to hold the fuselage. When landing gear supports the wings, the wings are always flexed upwards at the root and therefore undergo less stress leading to metal fatigue. (I know, the aircraft in the video is carbon fiber. I'm speaking generally.)
The Q2 is a canard but very different from a VariEze/Longeze. The Q2 is a taildragger with wheels at the end of the canard. The Varieze is a tricycle gear with a small canard and wheels that come down from the fuselage. The Varieze wing does almost all the lifting, with the canard for pitch control. In the Q2, the canard about half of the lifting. The Q2's airfoils are different from each other, with dihedral on the main wing and anhedral on the canard, so the wheels touch the ground.
@@waltb4415 Yes it's very interesting that the front wing does half the lifting whereas a normal canard front wing maybe does 10% or a bit more. Having two sets of wings of the same size means easier parking and smaller storage requirements. It might also mean simpler manufacturing if the wings can share components to be crafted. I'm aware of the stability challenges of a canard under some stall conditions, but it's inherently more efficient because you don't have the tail control surface subtracting lift. I'm curious if the Q2 has any advantages over the regular canard in terms of stability.
@@GeorgeOu Stability and controllability are opposite each other. A stable airplane (e.g. Mooney, DC-3) isn't sensitive or responsive but it has a lower workload cross-country. A sensitive airplane is more "fun to fly" but more effort. Think SUV vs. sports car. Here's why. In almost all aircraft, the control surfaces are far from the CG (Ailerons at wing tips, rudder and elevator at end of empennage). This gives the control surfaces a moment-arm to change the aircraft direction. The LongEze canards follow this, located at the front of the plane and the rudders at the ends of the wings. The Q2 is different, with the elevons on the front canard, near the CG, which is somewhere around the pilot's knees. This gives the elevons little leverage, which results in a heavy pitch control. Q2 controllability is moderate in roll because the ailerons are at the wing root instead of tip. It's heavy in pitch because the elevons are near the CG. As for efficiency and not having a downward-pushing horizontal elevator, this is sometimes correct. Except for fly-by-wire aircraft with an "all flying" tail, horizontal stabilizers push down somewhat. Try lifting a ruler with one finger underneath at the 5-inch mark and another finger on top at the 11-inch mark. In cruising flight, a canard is more efficient because all horizontal surfaces are lifting. Canards are less efficient for slow flight, landing, and take off. Canard designers can't allow the main wing to ever stall first, because that's dangerous. In a Cessna, if the main wing stalls or is about to stall, you can push forward on the stick and start flying again. But if in a canard the front wing was flying and the back wing was stalled, recovery would be difficult, unless you kicked rudder to wing over nose down and lose 1000 feet to start the main wing flying. Hence, all canards are designed so that the canard's pitch authority is limited so that the main wing cannot stall. Sounds safe but that makes for long takeoffs and long landings because the main wing cannot pitch up to a max-lift configuration. This is why STOL aircraft like the C-130 have such upswept empennages; it's for max pitch, max lift, slow speed takeoffs and landings. This is why no production planes, STOL, passenger, light or heavy, jet or prop are pure canards. Even the Avanti has a horizontal tail. The aircraft designers know well the drawbacks to safety for slow flight, landing and takeoff, where most accidents happen. Canards only appear in experimental aircraft, where cuteness matters and the buyers very likely will never finish and fly their kit.
@@waltb4415 Well efficiency in cruise is very important for fuel cost and range. Does the Avanti Piaggio strike a good compromise where you get the benefit of pitch authority but the efficiency of a canard where the front canard wing helps lift?
@@GeorgeOu I don't know, perhaps it's the sexy Italian looks. The Beech Starship was the only recent pure-canard production aircraft and it failed. I don't know of any other pure-canard production planes. If the canard was truly functional and efficient, there would be more of them. They remain as homebuilt novelties, aerodynamically inferior. When they were new in the 70's and 80's, they could claim to be the new-and-future innovation. Canards got lots of publicity back then. 50 years have gone by and they haven't passed the test of time. They've faded. Do any airlines run canard airliners? Do any flight schools teach in canards? I have actually built one and flown it. Those who've just heard the sales pitch don't really know.
Very difficult, because you must touch down absolutely straight with both wheels simultaneously. The wheels are so far away from the CG that significant yaw and groundlooping is a risk. Single-engine airplanes must have a stall speed of no higher than 54 knots to be certificated. Not so for experimental class. The Q2 generally approached at 95 knots and wouldn't fly at less than 80 knots. This made for hot landings with long rollouts because there's no elevator to paste the tailwheel down while applying brake. So little braking was possible until taxiing. A Pitts is easier to fly and land than a Q2. So I always picked long runways pointed straight into the wind. Crosswind landings were not feasible. I have an ATP with DC-3 type rating, CFI, CFII, tailwheel, sailplane, and seaplane ratings and 3,000 hours. This was the most terrifying plane I ever flew. After selling it, I bought a C-152 Sparrowhawk tailtragger conversion, which was a much better plane. Not nearly as cute-looking but everyone I knew who built a Q2 like me crashed it. Some survived.
Can’t speak for the Q2, but I built and flew the single seat Quickie. It was a very stable and easy to fly aircraft….and super FUN. I had no tail wheel experience so got checked out in a Cub. Then flew the Quickie. The Quickie was not difficult to land. In fact landings got to be the most fun part of flying it. I wouldn’t even try to land a Pitts. Mine landed around 60 mph because of the lack of flaps so it was a little fast on touchdown. The plane was very stable with harmonized controls.
Hello Rich; Sorry that my voice/music mix didn't work for you. I did my best but when it comes to videos, I'm a beginner. Hope you find an aviation project that captures you as the Q2 did me. Best wishes, Kim Singleton
