Any rutan quickie design for 2016?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Smo

New Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
2
Location
grand haven
Years ago I was interested in the rutan quickie 1 a single seater with quite good performance plus minimal cost. Have any recent designers come up with a plane wit similar perfirmance??
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,259
Location
Fresno, California
Years ago I was interested in the rutan quickie 1 a single seater with quite good performance plus minimal cost. Have any recent designers come up with a plane wit similar performance??
Leeon Davis' DA-11 comes to mind: Leeon Davis' DA-11

I'm not sure if it is as cheap or easy to build (sheet metal construction) compared to the Quickie, but the performance is noteworthy.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,764
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Yes, although not nearly as exotic looking, and without the bizarre flying qualities.

In addition to the aforementioned DA-11:

Colomban MC-30 Luciole
Spacek SD-1 Mini-Sport
PIK-26

Several others in the works, on the sketchpads, and on people's minds.
 

Smo

New Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
2
Location
grand haven

Himat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
2,865
Location
Norway
I should point out that those qualities were achieved mostly by eliminating things like climb performance, payload, service ceiling, crash protection, and durability. It's great if you are 5'6", 120 lbs and immortal.
A single seater with quite good performance plus minimal cost can be built from plans or in kit forms. What people must notice is that there is a threshold to minimal cost and that minimal cost do not necessarily match what people find cheap nor affordable. The Sonex range and maybe even the RV-3 are quite good performers at "minimal" cost.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,015
Location
World traveler
Years ago I was interested in the rutan quickie 1 a single seater with quite good performance plus minimal cost. Have any recent designers come up with a plane wit similar perfirmance??
This sounds like a simple question, but it's not. As others have pointed out, the original Quickie was a beautiful think with impressive performance but really only suitable for small, light pilots. There are hundreds of single-seat homebuilt designs out there. Perhaps you'll get more useful answers if you tell us more about what you're looking for?

Approximate budget
Your own approximate height/weight
Long or short home field, grass or paved, high or low altitude?
Type of flying you'd like to do (local fun, cross-country, aerobatics, bush flying, etc.)
Your preferred construction method
Your experience as a builder
Your experience as a pilot
 

kent Ashton

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
727
Location
Concord, NC
Years ago I was interested in the rutan quickie 1 a single seater with quite good performance plus minimal cost. Have any recent designers come up with a plane wit similar perfirmance??
The Hummels are very easy to build. I have always like the look of them and you can't get much cheaper than 1/2 a VW. Legal Eagle is another that would be great fun.
Hummel Aviation - Hummel Bird
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,258
Location
Memphis, TN
Starwars looking cool does not always make good airplanes. Flying airplanes,yes; but want to fly more than once, not so often. The Quickie and planes like it are many times engineering exercises. Fly on 18 hp for $1000. What is not really discussed is it takes $100,000 worth of knowledge to come up with the $1000 design. It is only a $1000 airplane to those people. As an Engineering exercise, it works; as a day to day plane, modifications end up turning it into a 50hp airplane. If you are not a pilot, they are the last types to get into. Experience, to handle the different ,takes time in conventional aircraft. Wanting something cool, wanting to build, and wanting to fly are almost mutually exclusive parts of the airplane world, and yet they all have to come together. Most of the times it is oil and water. Steps to build are not steps to fly.
 

psween

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
100
Location
7MN3
One of the nice things about Burt's designs is that he's tall (6' 5" or so). Most were designed for his height, so even though the airframes may be small, cockpit size is often ok.

Patrick
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,764
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Have a look at the Monnett Moni from 1986. It was a brilliant little airplane which was held back by a poor engine choice and a poor decision early on to have people build it with bonded wing skins. Both of those issues are known, understood, and are easily avoided problems now.

IMHO, It represents a perfect candidate for this intended class of aircraft. Room for tall pilots apparently. Aerodynamically efficient (compared to other small powerplanes). It used an exotic little German-designed 2 stroke screamer engine built in Italy, with an incredible power to weight ratio. But they found that they needed to add 40+ pounds of weight to the engine mount in order to balance it safely, making the actual "installed weight" of the engine about 75-85 pounds. This immediately opens up the possibility of using a small block (23-28HP) industrial generator engine (similar to the Onan used on the Q1).

The newer versions of the Kohler and Honda generator engines have fuel injection available, and are designed for extreme long-term reliability. Removing or lightening the flywheel and other easy weight-reduction steps would bring these engines into the weight parameters for the Moni very easily. They are capable of achieving 1 to 1.3 gallons an hour fuel burn at cruise settings.

Now after the Moni came out and was selling well, Monnett built an airplane called the "Mini-Moni", which was a 16 foot clip wing version. This likely happened after he realized that the stock 27 foot span Moni was a very poor "soaring" motorglider but it was an efficient little sportplane. The 16 foot Moni did 140 MPH on the 25HP KFM engine, but it was a little touchy for heavy pilots on a hot day. So Monnett built (or planned to build) a "Midi-Moni" with about a 22 foot span. This would surely have been a sweet spot. Monnett apparently saw this too, but he chose to pursue the (better business decision) to add another seat to the Moni. John Monnett's 22 foot span Midi-Moni now has two very small seats instead of one good size seat. He then added his very successful VW conversion engine to it. Brilliant, because he can sell a profitable kit airplane, which is designed to be a perfect fit for his profitable engine. Winner!

But because of legal issues he can't or doesn't use the name Midi-Moni. The 22 foot span Midi-Moni is called the 22 foot span Sonex these days :)

So with the knowledge of this intricate back-story, I have always imagined a 22 foot span single seat Moni, using the fuel injected Honda industrial engine, with several MILD tuning upgrades (ignition, porting, exhaust). No high power/high risk racing mods. I feel it is reasonable to assume that I can get about 30-33HP with pretty good reliability, because the Para-Zoom guys in Germany are selling a 23HP Briggs Vanguard derivative that claims 30-33 HP with a carburetor on it.

With the addition of aerodynamically better swept wingtips (see Dan Moser's "MOSI" in his avatar), retaining the original Moni single wheel, and simple, low-tech gap seals, I would very much expect to have an airplane that achieved the same 140 MPH cruise as the short wing clipped Moni, using just over a gallon an hour of car gas. The hangar storage "footprint" would be a little less than the tandem wing Quickie 1.

At these fuel burn numbers, the stock, unmodified 4 gallon tank in the Moni would yield 3 hours of flying time with a small reserve. Cross country flights of 400 miles between fuel stops are easily possible. Increasing the fuel capacity from 4 to 6 gallons would add 50% to these numbers. There is a drawing available for building 3 or 4 gallon wing tanks into the Moni, which are similar to the RV style structural aluminum tank. Having ten gallons total on board would yield a real cross country airplane.

The original Moni was designed as a 6G mild aerobatic aircraft. Clipping the wings to 22 feet would provide additional reserve strength.

The interesting part is that the Moni did what it did using flat-wrapped sheet metal and blind rivets. It used a Wortmann airfoil, and you would definitely want to flush rivet it today, but everything else on the airplane except the canopy was straight lines and domed head blind rivets.
 

Armilite

Banned
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
3,227
Location
AMES, IA USA
Years ago I was interested in the rutan quickie 1 a single seater with quite good performance plus minimal cost. Have any recent designers come up with a plane wit similar perfirmance??
======================================================================

This is still probably one of the Cheapest, Plans Built, Single Seat Airplanes you can build.

Not really, "with quite good performance plus minimal cost." there isn't many New Designers in this Big World. The Quickie(Q1) was a Plans built Composite Airplane with a few metal parts supplied by Quickie Aircraft.

The Plans are Free on the net, to $10 average on ebay.

Everything from a Onan Generator Engine, 18hp-22hp motor, to a Skidoo/Rotax 583(97hp at 7750rpms) has been put on one. To save Wieght, and Air/Fan Cooled engine would probably be best. A Rotax 185, 277, 377, 447, or Kawasaki 340/440, with Electric Start. The Onan 18hp was around 72lbs. Today, a 54hp Simomini Single would be a good canidate.

With a Luggage Capacity of 20 lb (9.1 kg), and a Empty weight of 245 lb (112 kg), and a Useful load: 240 lb (108 kg) and a Max. takeoff weight: 485 lb (220 kg). It does say what the Fuel Tank holds, but I would guess 12+ gallons, 12 x 6lbs = 72lbs for Fuel. So 240lbs - 72lbs = 168lbs for Pilot, 188lbs for Pilot with no Bags.

Today, if it was built with some of the light weight materials available like Carbon Fiber, Titainium, use Lithium Batterys, Plastic's, etc. You might save some Weight to use bigger Engines, or carry more Fuel. If, the Airframe Design was Scaled up maybe 20%, 40%, etc. it may fit other people, and allow for other Engines, or more Fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Quickie

Specifications (Onan engine)

Data from Flight International[6] The Canard Pusher No. 16

General characteristics

Crew: one pilot
Capacity: 20 lb (9.1 kg) luggage
Length: 17 ft 4 in (5.30 m)
Wingspan: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
Height: 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m)
Wing area: 53.8 ft² (5.00 m²)
Empty weight: 245 lb (112 kg)
Useful load: 240 lb (108 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 485 lb (220 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Onan opposed 4-stroke piston engine, 18 hp (14 kW) at 3,600 rpm

Performance

Maximum speed: 126 mph (203 km/h)
Cruise speed: 115 mph (185 km/h)
Stall speed: 47 mph (75 km/h)
Range: 570 mi (930 km)
Rate of climb: 420 ft/min (2.1 m/s)
 

Attachments

Last edited:
2
Group Builder
Top