![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
From User talk:Ericg and User talk:Keenan Pepper:
These are two different articles, and should remain as such. What you've proposed is the equivalent of merging Cessna with Cessna 172. Quickie Aircraft was the manufacturer which built Rutan Quickie kits. Please consider reverting your own edit. ericg ✈ 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
yes there should be a different artical bettween the producer and the product, even though there is only one product of the company. a quickie spin off was created in the early 90's i think by a company called "Eagle Aircraft" i think they're bassed in Perth Australia, but i am not %100 sure about atm i can find quite a bit of information on it should you be interested, they actualy have made quite a few side by side, aircraft that look REALY funny including a tadem wing aircraft that also has a traditional tail.
These are different airplanes. Quickie (model 54) is a pure Rutan design, single seat. Q2 is a different airplane, two seater, not a Rutan alone design. Quickie Aircraft is another item. In this article, title and photo are not telling the same plane... Two articles would be better. Plxdesi january 08
Ayway, photo footage should indicate that it is a Q2, not a Quickie Shimada22 ( talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Two questions from a newbie : why is a tandem wing different to a biplane? It's not explained anywhere I can find. Can the forward wing of a tandem wing be a canard? I thought the definition of a canard winglet was 'does not provide lift'. Thanks in advance for any answers. David.j.james 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, definitely no. In any lifting configuration (wing and aft tail, or tandem, or canard), the front wing is destabilizing, the aft one is stabilizing. Canard elevators are on the front wing, yes, but considering a canard as a stabilizer is an aerodynamic nonsense. To cope with pitch stability, any aircraft needs to input an heavier wing loading on the front wing. Canard wing loading is about 1.5 to 2 times more than the wing. Plxdesi january 08
Hi: For reasons best left unexplained, I was part of a project to salvage pieces of an unflyable Quickie (I don't have the N-number handy). The registration plate said the engine was 18hp, and I understand it was from an Onan 2-cylinder engine. The craft was reported able to use 1 gallon per hour at 100 mph air speed. I have heard the canard was designed to stall before the rear lifting surface, essentially making the craft unstallable although the design of the canard airfoil made it almost useless if had any water on it.
65.40.225.13 ( talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)dlneiman
"Rutan Model 49 : The original concept design by Burt Rutan."
"Rutan Model 54 Quickie : Prototype aircraft produced at the Rutan Aircraft Factory."
"Quickie : The original model has one seat and is powered by an 18 horsepower (14 kW) engine"
"Quickie Q2 : This two seater has a 64 horsepower (48 kW) Volkswagen air-cooled engine and can be constructed as a Tri-Q with tricycle rather than conventional landing gear."
"Q200 and TriQ-200 (with tricycle gear) : This two-seater model is faster than the Q2 with a 105 horsepower (78 kW) Continental O-200 engine and uses a different airfoil for the canard. It can also be constructed as a Tri-Q with tricycle rather than conventional landing gear.[citation needed]"
First, thank you Graeme for your positive help.
About the layout choice, in "QUICKIE-TYPE AIRCRAFT DESIGN ORIGINS", Rutan wrote : "While the Model 49 appeared feasible, it had potential shortcomings: very low Reynolds number on the fins and canard wing and excessive CG travel with pilot weight variation."
"The plain elevators were given slots to improve the lifting ability of the forward wing."
According to Canard Pusher (Rutan) :
"The plain elevators were given slots to improve the lifting ability of the forward wing."
...So I went to Quickie drawings : elevator is a plain flap. In quickheads.com : [3]. Plxdesi2 ( talk) 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"The Quickie is a "taildragger" with fixed (non-retractable) main wheels faired into spats located at the tips of the forward wing, acting like end plates (increasing effective aspect ratio)." The spats might operate as a kind of fence, but is is true to say that the aspect ratio is changed? Arrivisto ( talk) 15:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
From User talk:Ericg and User talk:Keenan Pepper:
These are two different articles, and should remain as such. What you've proposed is the equivalent of merging Cessna with Cessna 172. Quickie Aircraft was the manufacturer which built Rutan Quickie kits. Please consider reverting your own edit. ericg ✈ 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
yes there should be a different artical bettween the producer and the product, even though there is only one product of the company. a quickie spin off was created in the early 90's i think by a company called "Eagle Aircraft" i think they're bassed in Perth Australia, but i am not %100 sure about atm i can find quite a bit of information on it should you be interested, they actualy have made quite a few side by side, aircraft that look REALY funny including a tadem wing aircraft that also has a traditional tail.
These are different airplanes. Quickie (model 54) is a pure Rutan design, single seat. Q2 is a different airplane, two seater, not a Rutan alone design. Quickie Aircraft is another item. In this article, title and photo are not telling the same plane... Two articles would be better. Plxdesi january 08
Ayway, photo footage should indicate that it is a Q2, not a Quickie Shimada22 ( talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Two questions from a newbie : why is a tandem wing different to a biplane? It's not explained anywhere I can find. Can the forward wing of a tandem wing be a canard? I thought the definition of a canard winglet was 'does not provide lift'. Thanks in advance for any answers. David.j.james 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, definitely no. In any lifting configuration (wing and aft tail, or tandem, or canard), the front wing is destabilizing, the aft one is stabilizing. Canard elevators are on the front wing, yes, but considering a canard as a stabilizer is an aerodynamic nonsense. To cope with pitch stability, any aircraft needs to input an heavier wing loading on the front wing. Canard wing loading is about 1.5 to 2 times more than the wing. Plxdesi january 08
Hi: For reasons best left unexplained, I was part of a project to salvage pieces of an unflyable Quickie (I don't have the N-number handy). The registration plate said the engine was 18hp, and I understand it was from an Onan 2-cylinder engine. The craft was reported able to use 1 gallon per hour at 100 mph air speed. I have heard the canard was designed to stall before the rear lifting surface, essentially making the craft unstallable although the design of the canard airfoil made it almost useless if had any water on it.
65.40.225.13 ( talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)dlneiman
"Rutan Model 49 : The original concept design by Burt Rutan."
"Rutan Model 54 Quickie : Prototype aircraft produced at the Rutan Aircraft Factory."
"Quickie : The original model has one seat and is powered by an 18 horsepower (14 kW) engine"
"Quickie Q2 : This two seater has a 64 horsepower (48 kW) Volkswagen air-cooled engine and can be constructed as a Tri-Q with tricycle rather than conventional landing gear."
"Q200 and TriQ-200 (with tricycle gear) : This two-seater model is faster than the Q2 with a 105 horsepower (78 kW) Continental O-200 engine and uses a different airfoil for the canard. It can also be constructed as a Tri-Q with tricycle rather than conventional landing gear.[citation needed]"
First, thank you Graeme for your positive help.
About the layout choice, in "QUICKIE-TYPE AIRCRAFT DESIGN ORIGINS", Rutan wrote : "While the Model 49 appeared feasible, it had potential shortcomings: very low Reynolds number on the fins and canard wing and excessive CG travel with pilot weight variation."
"The plain elevators were given slots to improve the lifting ability of the forward wing."
According to Canard Pusher (Rutan) :
"The plain elevators were given slots to improve the lifting ability of the forward wing."
...So I went to Quickie drawings : elevator is a plain flap. In quickheads.com : [3]. Plxdesi2 ( talk) 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"The Quickie is a "taildragger" with fixed (non-retractable) main wheels faired into spats located at the tips of the forward wing, acting like end plates (increasing effective aspect ratio)." The spats might operate as a kind of fence, but is is true to say that the aspect ratio is changed? Arrivisto ( talk) 15:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)