# New to this site

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
I'm new here, just looking for "actual" information that anyone has on the Quickie Q200's in particular. I'm not so much interested in building or completing a build (unless it's so close or a good project)

I'm interested in the handling, both slow and high speed characteristics - the landing characteristics - the take off characteristics - stall characteristics (I know some say they don't stall) but do they dip a wing, want to roll, don't want to roll etc. - comfort (can you sit in these for 2-3 hrs at time - can you see out of the cockpit in the forward direction decently?

What are if any, speed modifications? I've heard of the 6 pack but not specifically what all 6 improvements are. What I "think" are some of the 6 are:

Speed Brake
Toe Brakes
Reflexor (aka flaperons)
*?
*?
*?

I've yet to actually sit/fly in one so I don't know squat other than there's a Yahoo newsgroup that the owners hang out at. The website quickheads seems to be more of a builders site, although there is some good information.

Thanks,

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
I've never flown in one, but I've sat in the Q2 that used to be at Chino Planes of Fame museum, before its use as an educational tool led to the kids savaging it so badly that it's since been thrown away, I believe. Cockpit is small. It's a two-seater in the same sense a KR-2 is a "two seater": You best be on very good terms with your passenger, because you're going to be pressed up against them the entire flight. Very typical of pre-1990 homebuilts.

My understanding is that the type deserves its reputation for speed, especially the Q200's. "Stall" characteristics are typical canard type - a straight-ahead mush and moderate-rate descent, rather than a break and/or a wing-drop, unless the airplane has been badly rigged. All the Quickie-derived designs with the original main landing gear (out on the tips of the canard) shared the same tendency to be twitchy on taxi or the beginning or end of runway ops. A small stone under one wheel gives enough moment to nearly overwhelm the steering capability of the tiny tailwheel.

The original landing gear design can lead to PIO's on landing. I have a first-hand account of a Q2 at Brackett Field (POC) from the owner, who got into this on landing and ended up flipping his bird. That would be on the "pretty extreme" end of things, even for this type. Most of the later modifications to the Q2/Q200 series were either a new canard airfoil to take care of the rain/dirt pitch trim problems the original canard had, or moving the main gear inboard on the canard to resolve the ground-handling issues. Apparently that works, but it does sacrifice some aesthetics - the Dragonfly Mk II is the only one of these tandem-wing birds that actually looks decent with the inboard gear, IMHO.

Supposedly the Q2/Q200 is a fun bird to fly, with light controls and a smooth ride. I've heard of the "speed mods" such as the "reflexor" ailerons and the little t-tail fin in back, but I don't know much about them.

You can't build a Q2/Q200 from plans. The airplane was kit-only, and the fuselage shells came pre-molded. The canopy used to be available on Aircraft Spruce as a separate item, but I don't believe they offer it anymore.

Last edited:

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Thanks. I have no "first hand knowledge" yet either. I am going to be looking at one next month on one of my trips I have to go on.

The cockpit doesn't "scare" me to much as my wife refuses to fly in anything smaller than a 737. Which I'm ok with.

The ground handling is my major concern as eventually you must come down no matter who you are and the notes of the bounce are valid as well as the tracking, all of which have been noted and even corrected if one believes a certain alignment technique will cure the tracking.

I'm not that into building, rather I want to fly. I have the capabilities to build, have the resources at work to handle the project and I even have the capabilities to make the windshields as my wife's company makes acrylic windshields for all kinds of applications, I just would rather use the plane than to "have to work" on one full time. Might have her make a windshield a different color and apply her scratch coating process to it so Windex and such don't attack the acrylic. I'm fine with projects just don't want a basket of parts and another hill to climb.

This is why I was wanting to know about them from all aspects.

Please elaborate on the "canard mush"? An owner, (wanting to sell) says "you can't stall these" ??? His words were that you can pull back on the stick and the plane will just sink at a predictable rate rather than break over or drop a wing. ?? He said he uses this technique to land as he wants the tail to touch before the mains (avoid prop strike I believe and to have the tiny tail wheel provide some directional stability)

Ultimately, if I was to build a plane, I'd design a composite frame and skin'd bush plane. It hasn't been done yet, would not be heavy and sounds unique enough to be fun.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
...The ground handling is my major concern as eventually you must come down no matter who you are and the notes of the bounce are valid as well as the tracking, all of which have been noted and even corrected if one believes a certain alignment technique will cure the tracking.
The only "reliable" cure for the ground-handling issues of which I'm aware is moving the main wheels inboard. The issue is that, with the original design, they're so far out that "catching" on even a small stone on the runway can really jerk the tail around, especially at low speeds. No amount of toe-in or toe-out will fix that. You either live with the characteristic (and always fly from high-quality paved runways) or you move the gear inboard. Don't let me overblow this characteristic - it's something of a problem, yes, but it doesn't make the airplane unusable. You just have to be aware of it and be careful about how you operate the airplane. The PIO issue with the original gear is the bigger problem, from what I understand, and is also cured by either pilot technique or by moving the mains inboard.

Please elaborate on the "canard mush"? An owner, (wanting to sell) says "you can't stall these" ??? His words were that you can pull back on the stick and the plane will just sink at a predictable rate rather than break over or drop a wing. ??
My only first-hand experience of this is in a LongEZ. I was in the back seat. The owner took me up for a flight and showed off his baby. He set us up for slow flight and let me pull back on the side-stick until we "stalled," which really meant that the nose dropped a little and then rose again a little, and the airplane did a gradual descent. No break. No wing drop. Could've held that all the way to the ground. The owner's description you quote is generally accurate from the pireps of the Q2/Q200's I've read. Now, any airplane can be stalled if you abuse it enough, but a canard or tandem-wing aircraft, from level, unaccelerated flight, will behave much as he describes if you simply pull back on the stick with a low power setting. A true power-on "stall" will involve more of an initial "break", and the nose will slowly bob up and down. Depending on the airplane, you may or may not have a slow climb or descent at that point. There is no true "break and drop" as there would be for a stall in a "conventional" airplane.

We have a couple of people here on HBA with personal flight experience in a Quickie, the single-seat predecessor to the Q2/Q200. If they chime in, they can probably add a lot more useful information than I have.

Last edited:

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Personally, I always thought it would be neat to setup a Quickie like a glider with a monowheel and outriggers.

Flying the Quickie doesn’t take any more skill than flying C-150, you just have to be aware of a few unique traits. The first is the wingtip wheels which Topaz already explained. The long moment arm and light tailwheel weight make it a bit tricky on rough or dirty runways, but on the plus side, if the wingtip wheels are built sturdy enough out can survive a groundloop without damage as long as you manage to miss signs and lights.

As far as a mush goes, it’s like most planes in that if you get slow on your approach, you are left with a higher rate of sink. Get too slow and the canard will protect you against stall, but the high flat sink will make your canards act like a diving board, eagerly bouncing you back into the air, but still at a slow speed. At that point it will settle again, firmer and more nose down... lather, rinse and REPEAT. A little power (or better yet, a go around) is the best way to save you from possible damage and assured embarrassment. Fly it in like a Cessna and you should be good as long as you control your sink. There is not really a “flare” so to speak, just a matter of hitting the right speed, then just holding it off as it settles into the runway. Make your first approaches a little fast... it will float down the runway and require a go around you can make gradually slower approaches until it lets you touch down close enough to the approach end of the runway, then you can make your first real landing. Don’t force it onto the ground (diving boards, remember?),get the speed right and the. Just hold it off with aft stick.

One other thing that warrants research is the canard’s response to rain or severe bug accumulation. I believe they had a severe inability to keep the nose up in the rain with the original airfoil, but that was largely resolved with a new ark left designed airfoil. Find out which airfoil is on the one you are looking at.

Last edited:

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Personally, I always thought it would be neat to setup a Quickie like a glider with a monowheel and outriggers....
Someone did that with a Q2. Retractable gear, no less. Saw pictures of it (red painted overall) online. I don't know if it ever flew.

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Someone did that with a Q2. Retractable gear, no less. Saw pictures of it (red painted overall) online. I don't know if it ever flew.
I would like to see that one.

BTW, I added a bit more to my post, partly to add more info, but mostly because I have fat thumbs and a tiny keyboard today

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info..

So far I believe I can handle the shortcomings that you've covered. My mission is 3-400 mile trips twice a week and if you start looking at the cost analysis here, a Q200 is a bargain. SouthWest charges, spur of the moment, about 450.00 round trip between OAK and ONT. I do this weekly.

Driving like an idiot at 90 takes 6 hrs and two tanks of gas so $150-160 each way or$300 round trip. I hate the boring drive.

A Quickie can do the trip on 12 gal. So worst case $60/each way$120 round trip. I know with the wheel clearance they are not off airport landing plane and I'm good with that.

Looking forward to more input

Thanks,

Staff member
Log Member

HBA Supporter

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
LOL. Yeah, it doesn't improve the looks, does it? At least not until you pull the gear up.

I can't imagine much useful load was left after this mod. Probably turned the airplane effectively into a single-seater.

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Personally, I always thought it would be neat to setup a Quickie like a glider with a monowheel and outriggers.

Flying the Quickie doesn’t take any more skill than flying C-150, you just have to be aware of a few unique traits. The first is the wingtip wheels which Topaz already explained. The long moment arm and light tailwheel weight make it a bit tricky on rough or dirty runways, but on the plus side, if the wingtip wheels are built sturdy enough out can survive a groundloop without damage as long as you manage to miss signs and lights.

As far as a mush goes, it’s like most planes in that if you get slow on your approach, you are left with a higher rate of sink. Get too slow and the canard will protect you against stall, but the high flat sink will make your canards act like a diving board, eagerly bouncing you back into the air, but still at a slow speed. At that point it will settle again, firmer and more nose down... lather, rinse and REPEAT. A little power (or better yet, a go around) is the best way to save you from possible damage and assured embarrassment. Fly it in like a Cessna and you should be good as long as you control your sink. There is not really a “flare” so to speak, just a matter of hitting the right speed, then just holding it off as it settles into the runway. Make your first approaches a little fast... it will float down the runway and require a go around you can make gradually slower approaches until it lets you touch down close enough to the approach end of the runway, then you can make your first real landing. Don’t force it onto the ground (diving boards, remember?),get the speed right and the. Just hold it off with aft stick.

One other thing that warrants research is the canard’s response to rain or severe bug accumulation. I believe they had a severe inability to keep the nose up in the rain with the original airfoil, but that was largely resolved with a new ark left designed airfoil. Find out which airfoil is on the one you are looking at.
Thanks, I'm striving for the newer/cure LS1 airfoil as it is supposed to not be acceptable to the rain/dirt/bug issue.

Sounds like to land one, you arrest the decent with power and then you can descend at a predictable rate, hopefully at the runway, and tough tail first as I've read they do not flare.

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Close, but not quite. You don’t have to arrest descent with power. If you come in at the right speed, a little back stick and ground effect will arrest your descent nicely. When I mentioned power, it was in reference to a botch landing where you’ve either arrived with too much sink or you’ve bounced the landing.

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Close, but not quite. You don’t have to arrest descent with power. If you come in at the right speed, a little back stick and ground effect will arrest your descent nicely. When I mentioned power, it was in reference to a botch landing where you’ve either arrived with too much sink or you’ve bounced the landing.
Just wondering out loud, what’s the glide ratio like on these as the thing has no wingspan which is why you need 70 mph to lift off.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Just wondering out loud, what’s the glide ratio like on these as the thing has no wingspan which is why you need 70 mph to lift off.
Somewhere between a Gee Bee and a brick?

#### Rik-

##### Well-Known Member
Somewhere between a Gee Bee and a brick?
Oh great.. Flies like a cherokee

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Span is your friend, which is why gliders have a lot of it.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Oh great.. Flies like a cherokee
Years ago I got interested in buying a Varga that was advertised for sale. Good looking airplane. Was just about ready to request a flight when the owner/seller said, “You’ll love flying it. It flies just like a Cherokee.”

Now I have nothing against Cherokees, (would love to have an early 180) but I was looking for something much more sporty.

BJC

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Just wondering out loud, what’s the glide ratio like on these as the thing has no wingspan which is why you need 70 mph to lift off.
As Topaz said, aspect ratio counts for a lot in L/D, and the Quickies (especially the Q1) has plenty of that. I never tested for L/D, but I’ve read of estimates ranging from 9:1 all the way up to 14:1. Based on my flying of the Q-1, drag and weight were pretty low (which is why it only needed a small engine). In my first flight in a Q-1, my air speed indicator failed, so I had to play with my approaches to work down to the right speed (judged by pitch). It didn’t slow down very easily, and if I carried a little extra speed in landing, it didn’t want to descend... crossed the end at almost the same height as I crossed the threshold.

2