# Airplane WantedWanted - Quickie Q1 Project

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

##### Well-Known Member
I figured that I'd toss this out there. Does anyone know of a Q1 project? Preferably Southern US.

#### Pilot Rick

##### Active Member
apparently you need to go dumpster diving in Mojave

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
You would be better off joining Quick Heads and Buy a set of Plans and hardware from them.

The original Q1 Quickey Spec's. The Cheapest Ideal Engine today would be a Rotax 277UL(28hp) or a Hirth F33 (28hp) or one of these Newer Honda/Clone 4 stroke Singles.

General characteristics
• Crew: one pilot
• Capacity: 20 lb (9.1 kg) luggage and 240 lb (108 kg) useful load
• Length: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
• Wingspan: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
• Height: 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m)
• Wing area: 53.8 sq ft (5.00 m2)
• Empty weight: 245 lb (111 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 485 lb (220 kg) / 10 kg = 22 kw needed = 29.50249 hp needed!
• Powerplant: 1 × Onan opposed four-stroke piston engine, 18 hp (13 kW) at 3,600rpm. Was later upgraded to 22hp.
Performance:
• Maximum speed: 126 mph (203 km/h, 109 kn)
• Cruise speed: 115 mph (185 km/h, 100 kn)
• Stall speed: 47 mph (76 km/h, 41 kn)
• Range: 570 mi (920 km, 500 nmi)
• Rate of climb: 420 ft/min (2.1 m/s)

#### Attachments

• 52.6 KB Views: 5
• 26.9 KB Views: 5

##### Well-Known Member
The Honda clone is probably the best route. I read watched a video about an owner's disappointment going with a 2 stroke. Starting from plans is an option but I figured if someone had one then I could get a head start. Finding a flying or previously flying specimen is challenging too. One was for sale near me last year but they didn't respond to their ad.

Last edited:

#### slevair

##### Well-Known Member
I have a partial built one an hour south of Nashville. PM for details.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
You would be better off joining Quick Heads and Buy a set of Plans and hardware from them.
The Cheapest Ideal Engine today would be a Rotax 277UL(28hp) or a Hirth F33 (28hp) or one of these Newer Honda/Clone 4 stroke Singles.
Cheapest... maybe. Ideal... no (#*$%& way. The airplane was designed around a 4 stroke V-twin, specifically because of reliability, fuel consumption, and cost. The original 18HP Onan generator engine is now obsolete, but any of the currently available small block V-twins converted for airplane use would be a big upgrade over any 2-stroke. Many 2-strokes would of course be a lot lighter for the same power output. However you would then have a tail-heavy airplane and wind up putting weight back in the nose, a bigger battery, etc. Or making a longer engine mount and having whatever issues that brings. Most importantly, this airframe configuration (a high-efficiency, stall-resistant, tandem wing) demands and requires more engine reliability than the majority of ultralights, at least if you think your life is worth more than a bowl of cereal. The Quickie cannot safely be landed in 90% of the places where you could land a traditional ultralight without getting hurt. No way, no how, no s**t. My guess is you will be dealing with three or four times the total amount of energy on impact, from a little higher weight and twice the velocity. So even if you're careful, even if you're a 2-stroke expert, even if you have 50 years of racing sleds or chainsaws... if you do have an engine issue in a Quickie, you're instantly in a much bigger pickle than if you were in a Quicksilver or Legal Eagle or Challenger. A 36HP Polini paramotor engine would create an incredible hotrod Q-1, and I'd love to see somebody do it. But it would be a more risky and complex proposition than a lightened up 25HP Briggs for darn sure. #### 1Bad88 ##### Well-Known Member Cheapest... maybe. Ideal... no (#*$%& way.

The airplane was designed around a 4 stroke V-twin, specifically because of reliability, fuel consumption, and cost.
The Onan was horizontally opposed. Otherwise, your statements are 100% on point.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
I had not realized that, my mistake.

#### 12notes

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
How much did the 18/22hp Onan engine weigh? Is a 1/2 VW an acceptable substitute, or is it way too heavy at 85 lbs?

Last edited:

##### Well-Known Member
The Onan weighed about 80 pounds. 1/2 VW's have been tried but I have read that they cause too much disturbance for the rudder.

#### F3A-1

Cheapest... maybe. Ideal... no (#*$%& way. The airplane was designed around a 4 stroke V-twin, specifically because of reliability, fuel consumption, and cost. The original 18HP Onan generator engine is now obsolete, but any of the currently available small block V-twins converted for airplane use would be a big upgrade over any 2-stroke. Many 2-strokes would of course be a lot lighter for the same power output. However you would then have a tail-heavy airplane and wind up putting weight back in the nose, a bigger battery, etc. Or making a longer engine mount and having whatever issues that brings. Most importantly, this airframe configuration (a high-efficiency, stall-resistant, tandem wing) demands and requires more engine reliability than the majority of ultralights, at least if you think your life is worth more than a bowl of cereal. The Quickie cannot safely be landed in 90% of the places where you could land a traditional ultralight without getting hurt. No way, no how, no s**t. My guess is you will be dealing with three or four times the total amount of energy on impact, from a little higher weight and twice the velocity. So even if you're careful, even if you're a 2-stroke expert, even if you have 50 years of racing sleds or chainsaws... if you do have an engine issue in a Quickie, you're instantly in a much bigger pickle than if you were in a Quicksilver or Legal Eagle or Challenger. A 36HP Polini paramotor engine would create an incredible hotrod Q-1, and I'd love to see somebody do it. But it would be a more risky and complex proposition than a lightened up 25HP Briggs for darn sure. Victor Bravo, You are correct! I have had 2 Quickies, both with Onans. I am too fat to try to fly with an Onan, and too wise to fly with any 2 cycle! I was going to use a 1/2 VW, but have selected an overhauled A0-84 instead. I have 20 hrs in a Q2 and 10 in a Dragonfly. You don't want an off field landing in a Q2! A Quickie is comperable in a poor outcome off airport. Reliable 4 cycle power will result in a longer life. Lex #### Hot Wings ##### Grumpy Cynic Log Member 1/2 VW's have been tried but I have read that they cause too much disturbance for the rudder. I've read that the full VW caused this problem - for some. It is one of the reasons I abandoned the 1/2 VW for my Quickie. #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member The Honda clone is probably the best route. I read watched a video about an owner's disappointment going with a 2 stroke. Starting from plans is an option but I figured if someone had one then I could get a head start. Finding a flying or previously flying specimen is challenging too. One was for sale near me last year but they didn't respond to their ad. ============================== There are literally many hundreds of thousands of 2 Strokes being used on Ultralights and Small Kit Planes around the World, and 99% of all of these Failures are Human related. From Humans using Old or Low Octane Gas causing Detonation. Humans using Cheap 2 Stroke Oil with Low Flash Points. Humans, not Boring there Cylinders Correct with a Torque Plate causing Seizures. Humans not Premixing the Gas right. Humans not Torquing the Engine parts right, Failing to Hook up parts right. Humans not doing proper maintenance, changing the Spark Plugs, Carb Boots, Fuel Line, Fuel Pumps, Fuel Filters, etc. 4 Strokes, even Certified Engines Fail also from some of the same Reasons, Humans! There is No Free Lunch when it comes to hp. Take the same CC, 2 & 4 Stroke Engines and turn them the same rpm, the 2 Stroke will make double the hp, so yea it burns more Gas. 2 Strokes are usually lighter than most 4 Strokes. All 2 Stroke and 4 Stroke Internal Combustion Engines Dump raw Gas right out of the Exhaust! That's WHY Tuned Pipes are great for 2 Strokes, they push back a certain % of that Raw Fuel to make more hp at the same rpm. Example: A Stock 503UL is rated [email protected], actually Dynoed 49.6hp, and with an R&D Aero Tuned Pipe it made 62.3hp@6500rpm a +12.7hp! When you Buy a complete even a Flying Plane or a project, you really don't know if its Built right, did they use the best materials, did it have any Damage History. There have probably been some upgrades in the last 30 years that you might want to use, that they didn't use, like a Carbon Spar. Today you have 3D printed parts. There have been many New Engines since the Onan. By using a 2 Stroke which not only makes more hp, they weigh lighter than the Onan. You only have so much weight to play with. You only can run a certain Size Prop depending on what Landing Gear you use. There has been everything from the Onan 18hp to a Skidoo 583(97hp) put on them. The Onan engine weighed 80 pounds. Most replacements will come in at 90 to 100 pounds with starter motors. As I showed. • Max takeoff weight: 485 lb (220 kg) / 10 kg = 22 kw needed = 29.50249 hp needed! 485 lbs - 245 lb = 240 lbs to play with. The Onan (22hp) was quite Heavy, 80+ lbs. The Hirth F33 (28hp) with Electric Start and Exhaust is 45 lbs. A Lithium Battery is 2.4 lbs. I have been out of the loop on this plane for years, but Carbon Spars might give you a Higher MTOW. Carbon Fiber Parts are lighter and Stronger than Fiberglass parts but do cost more. Some parts or Molds could be 3D Printed today. Take a Stock Duromax 440 Single, rated [email protected] Just turning it higher 4000rpm = 20hp, turn it 4500rpm = 22hp, 5000rpm = 25hp. But make some minor Bolt-On Upgrades and it can make [email protected] Duromax 420 16hp Electric Start$349.

Duromax 440 18hp Electric Start $429. Vegas Carts 625 23hp Electric Start$850

To Cut Weight, make more hp, and to make them more HD for Airplane use, cost $400 to$600. That's a Billet Rod & Flywheel, 34mm carb, K&N Air Filter, Header Exhaust, Hi-Rev Kit, Needle Bearing Rocker Arms, better CAM, and Milling the Head for a Higher CR.

ACE Belt Drive for them $669 Shipped to the USA. So Engine, Upgrades, and Belt Drive, you're looking at about$1,698.00.

A Good used Rotax 277UL (28hp) can be bought for $250 to$650 with a Gear Drive. Rebuild kits (Gaskets & Seals with New Piston and Rings) on eBay Avg $140 to$160. Rod bearing Avg $15, Crank Bearings Avg from$8.50 to $40 depending on Brand Name. This Koyo made in Japan is$21.49. Any bearing made in Japan or Germany is Good.
Most used 277 Engines if Compression is Good, just need to be Cleaned and then New Gaskets & Seals installed, But I would replace the Bearings while it's apart, then you know its all Good. At $650 +$150 + $7.80 +$21.49 +21.49 = $850.78, say another$20 for New Gear Box Oil makes $870.78. Now I paid$250 for my last 277 with a Gear Box, $400 Cheaper so 470.78 for 28hp! For my last used B Gear Box I paid$125, New run from $835 to$1,050.

A New Hirth (28hp):
 F-33 with Recoil Start​ $3,688.00​ F-33 with Recoil Start & 4V Belt Drive​$4,665.00 ​ F-33 with recoil & Electric start & 4V Belt Drive​ $TBA.00​ #### Attachments • 33.7 KB Views: 3 • 48.8 KB Views: 1 • 53.9 KB Views: 0 • 23.3 KB Views: 1 #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member Victor Bravo, You are correct! I have had 2 Quickies, both with Onans. I am too fat to try to fly with an Onan, and too wise to fly with any 2 cycle! I was going to use a 1/2 VW, but have selected an overhauled A0-84 instead. I have 20 hrs in a Q2 and 10 in a Dragonfly. You don't want an off field landing in a Q2! A Quickie is comperable in a poor outcome off airport. Reliable 4 cycle power will result in a longer life. Lex ==================================== The O84, 45hp at best and is too Heavey for a Q1 unless you're a really Skinny person. One of these Honda/Clone singles would be a better choice. Lots of aftermarket HD Racing parts for them. Singles go up to (100mm x 86.5mm) 679.6cc today. Ace Aviation makes a nice Belt Drive for them. Quickey Q1 So Yes, even 22hp isn't enough. Max takeoff weight: 485 lb (220 kg) / 10 kg = 22 kw needed = 29.50249 hp needed! The 277UL was rated [email protected], probably make [email protected] With a Good Tuned Pipe Designed for 6500rpm a 277UL 268.8cc/7cc= 38.4hp. The Hirth F33 at 323cc with a Good Tuned Pipe could make 313cc/7cc= 42.7hp using it 9.5cr and it's 20 lbs lighter with Electric Start than the 277. Q2 Max takeoff weight: 1,000 lb (453.5924 kg) / 10kg = 45.35924 kw needed = 60.82774 hp needed. Powerplant: 1 × Revmaster 2100-DQ converted auto-engine, 64 hp (47.7 kW) at 3,200 rpm and most People still weren't happy with its Performance so upgraded to the O-200 100hp. #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member Cheapest... maybe. Ideal... no (#*$%& way.

The airplane was designed around a 4 stroke V-twin, specifically because of reliability, fuel consumption, and cost. The original 18HP Onan generator engine is now obsolete, but any of the currently available small block V-twins converted for airplane use would be a big upgrade over any 2-stroke.

Actually, it was Designed around an Opposed Onan 18hp 4 Stroke which was very heavy 80+ lbs. The engine was soon updated to make 22hp. As I showed above with its 485 lb MTOW it really needed 29.5hp, which is Why most people abandoned the Onan and went to 2 Strokes, 377UL(35hp), 447(40hp), 503(50hp), etc., where most People were then Happy!

Many 2-strokes would of course be a lot lighter for the same power output. However you would then have a tail-heavy airplane and wind up putting weight back in the nose, a bigger battery, etc. Or making a longer engine mount and having whatever issues that brings.

Since most people switched to a 2 Stroke, 377UL, 447UL, 503UL, your assumsions are Baseless! Would some adjustments have to be made for Rotax 277UL, or lighter a Hirth F33, Yes! I haven't kept up with all the engines they may be using on them today.

Most importantly, this airframe configuration (a high-efficiency, stall-resistant, tandem wing) demands and requires more engine reliability than the majority of ultralights, at least if you think your life is worth more than a bowl of cereal. The Quickie cannot safely be landed in 90% of the places where you could land a traditional ultralight without getting hurt. No way, no how, no s**t. My guess is you will be dealing with three or four times the total amount of energy on impact, from a little higher weight and twice the

First Off this plane isn't even close to being an Ultralight! Yes, with the original Landing Gear Wheels on the Wingtips you're limited to paved airstrips or Mowed Grass Strips. Could you build it with a Tri Gear or Hoop Gear with Tires more suited for Off-Road areas, Yes! Most were built with the Wheels on the Wing Tips.
Maximum speed: 126 mph (203 km/h, 109 kn)[/B]
[*]Cruise speed: 115 mph (185 km/h, 100 kn)
[*]Stall speed: 47 mph (76 km/h, 41 kn)[/B]
[/LIST]
Engine Reliability has more to do with WHO Built it, WHO is maintaining it, and WHO is Flying it. Quickey/Q2/Q200 Accident reports. Copy and Paste into Excel then Sort, you will find the vast Majority of the Accidents were Pilot Errors, 2nd cause was Airframe Workmanship, not Engine Problems!

So even if you're careful, even if you're a 2-stroke expert, even if you have 50 years of racing sleds or chainsaws... if you do have an engine issue in a Quickie, you're instantly in a much bigger pickle than if you were in a Quicksilver or Legal Eagle or Challenger.

True, it demands more Respect, but that can be said for any Engine used on it 2 or 4 Stroke. All Engines can Fail, even Certified Engines. I would say maybe 1 in a 1000 Ultralights and Kit Planes even have Carb Heat for Carb Icing, do you? There are 503's and 582's out there flying with 1300+ Hours, so WHY can't you and others do that? There has been a lot of Info put on here these last few years to make your 2 Stroke run Cooler, to have less Carbon, to make more hp, etc. How much of it have you really Read, followed the weblinks given?

You can't blame the Engine, Top 3 causes of all Airplane Accidents are #1 Running out of Gas, #2 Flying with a known Mechanical Defect. #3 Flying in known Bad Weather. 85% of Rotax 2 Stroke failures are from Detonation that's caused by Humans being Cheap using Old Gas, Low Octane Gas. Easy to solve, use Fresh 93/100LL. 10% of the Failures are from Humans being Cheap using 2 Stroke Oils with Low Flash Points. 4% of the Failures are from Humans not changing their Spark Plugs, Carb Boots, Fuel Line, Fuel Filters, Fuel Pumps, messing with the Jetting, failure to assemble it right on a rebuild, and not Machining Cylinders right and Clearance the parts right. Carb Ice does play into the Mix, hard to diagnose. A combination of these things is the cause of most 2 Stroke Engine Failures, once again, Human related, not the Engines Fault.

A 36HP Polini paramotor engine would create an incredible hotrod Q-1, and I'd love to see somebody do it. But it would be a more risky and complex proposition than a lightened up 25HP Briggs for darn sure.
=========================

Now Victor you turn about Face and promote a 2 Stroke which doesn't even last to its recommended 450hr TBO (Avg Life is 250-300hrs) account they use too High of rpm to make that [email protected]! Even burning 100LL with the TCP Additive for their high CR used!

Could a Good Engine Builder/Tuner use some of the different Engine Coatings to reduce Heat and maybe use Evans Waterless Coolant to stop Head/Base Gasket problems, maybe use a better 2 Stroke Oil, maybe use a bigger Radiator, to make them live longer, probably! You're talking about a High Priced Engine that still needs upgrades. 244.3cc/36hp= 6.7861cc to make 1hp.

250 DS, 55 lbs (72mm x 60mm) 244.3cc making [email protected] This engine would make more hp, they only used a 28mm Carb. A Rotax 277UL 268.8cc uses a 36mm Carb.
At 7000rpm = 33.8hp
At 6750rpm = 32.6hp
At 6500rpm = 31.4hp (Industry Standard)

Last edited by a moderator:

##### Well-Known Member
I am missing the point of this. I said that I was looking for something flying or previously flying as a first choice. I know that construction details are always suspect but you can tell a lot from build logs, receipts, and the quality of the work done. I said that an owner was disappointed with the 2 stroke. His disappointment was due to the power band and short prop requirements of the airframe. I don't believe that I said that 2 strokes were bad or that they were a poor not an economical alternative.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
I am missing the point of this. I said that I was looking for something flying or previously flying as a first choice. I know that construction details are always suspect but you can tell a lot from build logs, receipts, and the quality of the work done. I said that an owner was disappointed with the 2 stroke. His disappointment was due to the power band and short prop requirements of the airframe. I don't believe that I said that 2 strokes were bad or that they were a poor not an economical alternative.
==============================

You first said "I figured that I'd toss this out there. Does anyone know of a Q1 project? Preferably Southern US. " Which could be a set of Plans & some parts!

There is nothing wrong with wanting a 4 Stroke, but you have to understand you only have so much Weight to Play with unless the Airframe was updated with Carbon Fiber Spars. Most Quickeys Q1 weren't built with them, most of the Q2/Q200's were. The 1/2 VW, the 084, are too heavy. This isn't an Ultralight and has a 45mph Stall Speed and Speed takes Gas if you want to make much distance with it. Most have Small Gas Tanks I think 9 Gallons if I remember right, and you need a Good Reserve, you don't want to run out of Gas with any Quickie Q1. Honda, makes the Best 4 Stroke Small Industrial Engines in the World, the rest 20+ different Brand Names have Copied Honda's Engines. The Clones are usually 50% cheaper than Honda's. These Honda/Clone Singles go up to 679.6cc so you can make about any hp you want. Most of these Clones are based off the Honda GX390. I have a Clone a Predator 212cc Hemi \$99.99 when on Sale. Very Good Engine. These engines are used on Go-Carts and can make up to 28hp for Racing. Ideal Engine for a Lazair Ultralight at 15hp. The difference in the Weight of a GX390 and the 679.6cc is a few lbs at most. A built 460 Single made [email protected] on the Dyno.

Last edited by a moderator:

##### Well-Known Member
But why are you so mad?

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
'88 I don't think he's mad in the American sense, I think he may be mad in the English sense (just kidding, Armie, don't go bonkers )

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
But why are you so mad?
===================

What makes you think I'm mad? Maybe I get a little frustrated at times, never mad. We see People daily come on these different FB Groups and on here wanting people to do their research when a simple Google Search would answer 95% of their Questions. Like Quick Heads FAQ FAQ I gave you a link to would Answer most of your questions!

Looking for a Plane/Project you would look in the Wanted Section on here, or Barnstormers, or eBay, or FB Market Place, and Craigslist and I use www.searchtempest.com which is a Good Search Engine for both eBay & Craigslist. In 15 Minutes you can search in a 2000+ Mile Radius of where you live from your Zip Code.

Not understanding something is one thing, being Lazy and not doing some research is another. You ask one thing, then say another. It's obvious you haven't really researched this plane much or the different engines used on it. You could have said at the very beginning, Hey, I'm looking for Flying Quickey Q1 with a 4 Stroke or a nearly finished project! If you had done some basic research on Quick Heads you would find very few Q1 even uses a 4 Stroke Onan 18-22hp, because it's underpowered, let alone any other 4 Strokes which are usually too Heavy, until today, there are some Honda/Clones that could work. The Plans/Kit came out in 1978 that's 43 Years ago.

The Build Time for a Quickie Q1 is 500hrs/8hrs= 62.5 Days at 8hrs a day, or 31.25 Weekends. The fastest one built I know of was 6 months and that was 25 years ago. Today with Hobby CNC Routers, 3D Printers, premade parts you could do it in less time. Since 3D Printers have gotten larger, you might be able to 3D many parts. I have seen a 20ft Kayak 3D Printed in modules that were then glued & screwed together.

It's like Victor putting down 2 Strokes left & right in his post, then recommending a 2 Stroke Polini, kind of ridiculous, isn't it?