New to this site

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
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
I fully understand why flight schools use them but they fly like ****. Pull the power and they sink like a rock. I flew a few of them at chino (DuBois) and there's an ass for every seat but mine don't like them as a plane I'd want to own.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
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.
That's better than I was thinking... I was expecting them to sink once the power was pulled as there's such small wing area.
 

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
2,749
Location
Midwest
I once built a Q-2 in quarter scale and it flew very nice with no tendency to drop a tip on stall but dropped straight forward and would oscillate depending on altitude. If I wasn't building the Taylor-mono or PDQ that would be the plane I'd be looking for plans for.
 

Marc Zeitlin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
609
Location
Tehachapi, CA
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.
Everyone's got their preferences, and maybe you've got really good reasons for wanting a Q-bird. But I'd seriously consider looking at a Long-EZ - an O-235/O-320 LE will be almost if not as as economical as the Q-bird from a fuel burn standpoint and will be a bit faster (particularly the O-320 version). I've got a customer here in Tehachapi who was commuting up to Oakland every week for a couple of years in his plane, which he set up for IFR to be able to shoot approaches through the marine layers up in the bay area. I don't know that I'd be willing to do that in a Q2/200, especially with the GU canard version.

Of course, you're only considering fuel costs here, against SW's full cost - if you factor in the full cost of operating a plane at $75/hr - $100/hr (counting hangar, insurance, oil, engine rebuild fund, maintenance, CI's, etc.), with a 2 - 2 1/4 hour flight each way, the RT cost will be pretty comparable with only one person in the plane (if a lot more pleasurable and faster door-to-door) than SW. Plus, you get a plane to use for other stuff :).

I just did three RT's from KTSP to KWVI this week in my COZY MKIV - beats the crap out of driving.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
Everyone's got their preferences, and maybe you've got really good reasons for wanting a Q-bird. But I'd seriously consider looking at a Long-EZ - an O-235/O-320 LE will be almost if not as as economical as the Q-bird from a fuel burn standpoint and will be a bit faster (particularly the O-320 version). I've got a customer here in Tehachapi who was commuting up to Oakland every week for a couple of years in his plane, which he set up for IFR to be able to shoot approaches through the marine layers up in the bay area. I don't know that I'd be willing to do that in a Q2/200, especially with the GU canard version.

Of course, you're only considering fuel costs here, against SW's full cost - if you factor in the full cost of operating a plane at $75/hr - $100/hr (counting hangar, insurance, oil, engine rebuild fund, maintenance, CI's, etc.), with a 2 - 2 1/4 hour flight each way, the RT cost will be pretty comparable with only one person in the plane (if a lot more pleasurable and faster door-to-door) than SW. Plus, you get a plane to use for other stuff :).

I just did three RT's from KTSP to KWVI this week in my COZY MKIV - beats the crap out of driving.
The only drawback is I dislike the tandem seating. If I could ever possibly convince my wife to fly, she'd quickly say NO to staring at the back of my head for 2 hrs.

Other than that I like the Cozy's it's just a preference thing as to the seating arrangement.

What is insurance like on planes like this?? Reason I ask as most airports require you to carry something in order to hanger at their airport. Can one even get a form of insurance on these?

The planes I have scheduled to look at next month all have the latest LS1 wing. I won't consider the GU wing just for the principal of the fact that it's got limitations.

I work in the Fontana area so I can base out of Cable hopefully and then KDVO at home up North.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,252
Location
Fresno, California
I work in the Fontana area so I can base out of Cable hopefully and then KDVO at home up North.
You’re down by my old stomping ground. I grew up at Flabob Airport in Riverside. I used to fly into Fontana’s airport when it was open.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
You’re down by my old stomping ground. I grew up at Flabob Airport in Riverside. I used to fly into Fontana’s airport when it was open.

I’m planing on getting my tail wheel endorsement at Flabob’s. It’s like 11 miles from my office so easy to pop in/out..
 

Marc Zeitlin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
609
Location
Tehachapi, CA
The only drawback is I dislike the tandem seating...
Yep. That's why I have a COZY MKIV. I was just addressing your statement regarding not needing a wide fuselage (wrt the Q2/200), and the notion that commuting would be a one person deal. But I get the objection to tandem.

What is insurance like on planes like this??
No idea about the Q2/200 insurance, but Long-EZ liability runs about $400/yr., and COZY MKIV liability is $550 this year (for me, IIRC). Hull will be VERY dependent upon the hull value, your total time/time in type, and ratings. Folks pay anywhere from $1500 - $4K for COZY MKIV hull, with values ranging from $50K - $100K. The insurance market has tightened a lot this year... Since I built my plane, I don't bother with hull.

I work in the Fontana area so I can base out of Cable hopefully and then KDVO at home up North.
If you actually want to commute between KDVO and KCCB, you're going to need an instrument rating and a GPS navigator, etc. Otherwise, you're only going to get in and out 1/2 - 3/4 of the time...
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,252
Location
Fresno, California
I have to agree with Marc that the Eze/Cozy is probably a better platform for your purposes. Either that or a more conventional but economical design, either homebuilt or factory built. The Quickies are neat but maybe not the best for daily cross country, especially if you might be doing it by instrument.
 

delta

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
2,048
Location
Brookside Utah
The Q2 had a few teething problems at first, and most have been understood and delt with. Directional control was not possible in a cross wind at certain speeds due to no differental braking, small rudder, and no plans specified ground angle of attack. The canard quit flying before the main wing causing a light tail wheel just before takeoff and just after landing. The reflexer and the t-tail were created to help the tailwheel do its job in a crosswind. I believe a 7* ground angle attack allowed the main wing to quit flying when the canard did, and thus eleminated the need for either. (they both have causes problems in a go around or incorrect positioning) A brake master cylinder for each wheel whether controlled by hand or toe added more control as did more rudder area for crosswind conditions.
The round fiberglass tail wheel spring has a tendancy to twist off in a hard turn incidentally. A flat spring would probably be better.
I saw 140mph indicated behind a revmaster with the original canard. I only flew it for a few minutes but found it easy to get use to as a low time pilot. I found the seating comfortable and ample.
The 0200 is the cats meow. As a rule you wouldn't have to tinker with it near as much to keep it running.
I've often fantasized about having one anphibious pontoon like a gruman duck for mine.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
Yep. That's why I have a COZY MKIV. I was just addressing your statement regarding not needing a wide fuselage (wrt the Q2/200), and the notion that commuting would be a one person deal. But I get the objection to tandem.

No idea about the Q2/200 insurance, but Long-EZ liability runs about $400/yr., and COZY MKIV liability is $550 this year (for me, IIRC). Hull will be VERY dependent upon the hull value, your total time/time in type, and ratings. Folks pay anywhere from $1500 - $4K for COZY MKIV hull, with values ranging from $50K - $100K. The insurance market has tightened a lot this year... Since I built my plane, I don't bother with hull.

If you actually want to commute between KDVO and KCCB, you're going to need an instrument rating and a GPS navigator, etc. Otherwise, you're only going to get in and out 1/2 - 3/4 of the time...
Thanks, I honestly didn't know/don't know much about the Cozy's. I knew there are deviants of the Cozy made by a few companies but didn't realize they had side by side configuration.

Looking over the spec's your plane is certainly faster than the Quickie.

Panel panel panel. Usefulness will all come down to what the panel has or what I can afford to put in the panel. Then again, I've always got SouthWest as a backup on the bad days.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
The Q2 had a few teething problems at first, and most have been understood and delt with. Directional control was not possible in a cross wind at certain speeds due to no differental braking, small rudder, and no plans specified ground angle of attack. The canard quit flying before the main wing causing a light tail wheel just before takeoff and just after landing. The reflexer and the t-tail were created to help the tailwheel do its job in a crosswind. I believe a 7* ground angle attack allowed the main wing to quit flying when the canard did, and thus eleminated the need for either. (they both have causes problems in a go around or incorrect positioning) A brake master cylinder for each wheel whether controlled by hand or toe added more control as did more rudder area for crosswind conditions.
The round fiberglass tail wheel spring has a tendancy to twist off in a hard turn incidentally. A flat spring would probably be better.
I saw 140mph indicated behind a revmaster with the original canard. I only flew it for a few minutes but found it easy to get use to as a low time pilot. I found the seating comfortable and ample.
The 0200 is the cats meow. As a rule you wouldn't have to tinker with it near as much to keep it running.
I've often fantasized about having one anphibious pontoon like a gruman duck for mine.
Thank you!

I'm very concerned about the crosswind capabilities as at KDVO it's a cross wind beast. How well do these (Q200's) forward slip? Being the rudder resembles a sheet of legal paper I am concerned as their ability to slip very well.

I'm going to be looking at a Q200 with the IO-200 and the LS1 Wing profile. Of course ideally the plane would be setup with the 6 pack of improvements which I believe one is the differential braking.

I like the looks of the Q200 as well as the speeds it can cruise at. I am not a person that travels with much, so the useful load of #550 is not a concern for me. I don't travel with anything but a cell phone when I take the trip on SouthWest now so it can fit in the passenger seat very easily with a IPad with ForeFlight.

This might not be the ultimate plane for the rest of my life, but for a while I feel it can suit my needs and then I can upgrade to something bigger (Bonanza V35) or maybe a Cozy even.

I can fabricate a speed brake, install the differential braking if needed, make the refluxer if needed, (Don't know what the other 3 of the 6 pack items are)

Does anyone ever paint these things something other than white? I'm starting to get the feeling that these things all are nearly identical and picking your specific one out in a lineup would be hard for a drunk person to do. (I don't drink but you get the idea)
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
Question, in all honesty.. Why is the first thing someone responds with when you tell them "I'm going to look at a Q200" they respond with, and don't take this wrong, "just buy a Cozy"?

Is there something wrong with the Q200 that no one is saying? I mean it seems like it just rolls off the tongue once the question is asked but no one says why.

A Cozy has some great attributes as far as speed, I was unaware it came in a side by side version until today, but is it just an great plane and it's cousin the Q200 is that bad?

Just don't want to beat my head against the wall if I shouldn't be beating my head against the wall.

Thanks
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
I haven't read this information because I'm not a member but I'll bet there's some hints there that you'd find useful.
http://quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1559&Itemid=178
Thanks, I’ve read their site, more of a builders site on how to construct the plane but little feedback on what a finished plane is actually like.

Looking at the sales numbers, they sold hundreds of these kits but actually finding one and an actual owner/pilot is fairly rare.

I appreciate all feedback and assistance. I like to know as much as possible before I do anything so I look and read all that I can before I go forward with anything.

I’ve read the GU wing issues. The hand brake issues vs toe brakes. The rev master engine issues and so on but someone thankfully pointed out in my research that if the plane is a real Q200 all these issues have been corrected in the Q200 design.

Right now I’m just running the thoughts through my mind, ok you found one, assume it’s good, assume the price is agreed upon, all’s good. How the hell can I get this plane home?

The standard procedure seems to do a few hours of taxi work around the airport. High speed taxi down the runway a few times to a lot of times.

Get the plane in the air and then land it. (I love doing pattern work so I’m good with this) Repeat and repeat over again.

Everyone seems to take a few weeks to accomplish this. I’m just like. I can’t camp out at an out of town airport so how do I get this plane home and do these practice steps locally. Fortunately the plane can be split in half aft of the cockpit so I guess I can take it apart and put it onto a flatbed trailer ?? A lot of work.
 

rivilee

Active Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
43
Location
Middle Tennessee
Something no one has said is that the castor angle on the main wheels was a problem and quickly gave the reputation that the Q2 was squirrelly on landing. However, David Gall came up with the "Gall alignment" which solved the problem. It's one of the essential "six pack" improvements. Those six "tweeks" have made the design work well. I would 100% bet the Q200 you're going to look at has all the improvements.
And yes, you're right about the kits/completion/finding one. I once bought a complete kit that was finished to the point of what was considered "quick build" - both wings finished, etc. Even included the NOS Revmaster and prop. $1600 for all of it... Sometimes I kick myself for not finishing it.

Here's one Reg Clarke built with a Subaru and obviously modified landing gear.
dc27461b26be90bbf9c6cd713458d277--coffee-shop-knots.jpg
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
345
Location
San Rafael, California
Something no one has said is that the castor angle on the main wheels was a problem and quickly gave the reputation that the Q2 was squirrelly on landing. However, David Gall came up with the "Gall alignment" which solved the problem. It's one of the essential "six pack" improvements. Those six "tweeks" have made the design work well. I would 100% bet the Q200 you're going to look at has all the improvements.
And yes, you're right about the kits/completion/finding one. I once bought a complete kit that was finished to the point of what was considered "quick build" - both wings finished, etc. Even included the NOS Revmaster and prop. $1600 for all of it... Sometimes I kick myself for not finishing it.

Here's one Reg Clarke built with a Subaru and obviously modified landing gear.
View attachment 88796
I wonder how fast that plane is.
 
2
Group Builder
Top