Randy,

I've got a Quickie that Kangke Industrial is planning to produce for under $200 in all molded composite. Actually there are two of them. One is a low end model with external linkages and an easier to fly wing and the other one is The Smasher with all internal linkages. They already produce the F3D/30 in all molded composite for $157.77 retail and it's just a little smaller than a Q-40.

I'm in the process of acquiring the molds for all molded Q-40 on the approved list and they may produce it, also.

BTW, they could produce a slightly lower quality Vortex if the plugs (preferrable) or molds are available.

Good idea Don..... I just called him !

RB


OH - there is now lower quality VORTEX, the quality, precision and strenght is what makes it so fast..

That's my whole point... Even my the wood version Vortex couldn't keep up with the composite.. must be some advantage.. I'd get smoked all day long with a wood quickie...

RB

RB,

One place the painted in the mold composites have an advantage is that there are no paint lines for numbers and trim. On Martin Hepperle's site (which appears to be down, thanks for letting me know BV), he had a study on the effect of trim lines on an airfoil. He calculated that the trim lines alone could cost 3-5 seconds. It's probably significantly less on the slower 424 planes.

One reason I've been investing heavily in being able to produce my own planes is that I count on it paying off in my not having to spend $400-600 on planes in the future. I spent $325 just on composite materials before the NATS. Unfortunately I didn't get my plane done in time.

Don

I've got a Quickie that Kangke Industrial is planning to produce for under $200 in all molded composite. Actually there are two of them. One is a low end model with external linkages and an easier to fly wing and the other one is The Smasher with all internal linkages. They already produce the F3D/30 in all molded composite for $157.77 retail and it's just a little smaller than a Q-40.

Do you have a pic of this quickee? I did not see it on the WEB site? What is there definition of an all molded composite aircraft?
(Hmmm...that could be a whole other discussion). I did not see the type of construction on the WEB site for the F3D/30.


Thanks
Mike DeNeve

The part that is "UNCLEAR" is 16.5K checked on the ground. What does that mean in your mind? "PEAKED", "PINCHED", "SANDBAGGING", "I DON'T KNOW", "HMMMM, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME", "LOOK MY TACH SAYS 14.2", AND SO ON.

I don't want any engine mfg entering the game at the NATS, because I feel the engine should be tested first to see if it is an appropriate choice for 424. Also, I would like to keep the expense of the event down to a minimum. So if the 16.5K is appropriate for sport engines and not HIGH performance engines keep and a clear up how it is checked. Make it cut and dry, "SIMPLE".

My "MOTIVES".....I am secretly plotting to rule the world, whowhooHAAAAHAAAAAA! I am going to build the bestest, fastest, coolest, betterest 424 model in the world and I will dominate the 424 scene. SHHHH, I will do all of this by making it look like a TT 40, that turns 16.5K on the ground.

Who is WHINNING? I am not a WHINNER, just ask. Honestly, I don't whine. Why are you guys picking on me??

As to The MASTER, Randy, I spend lots of money, Bridge, I would graciously accept the responsibility of 424 coordinator for the NMPRA, I think it should be counted seperatly anyway.

As to the NATS, I agree with Mike there is wiggle room to run 424 in its current format. We just need to beat up on Mike Condom until he says yes. I will also take on that responsibility!

Last but not least, NMPRA rules and AMA rules are two different animals.

Least, Don give a sneak peak at the composite quickee, please!!!!

Sorry Dan, you'll have to wait a couple of weeks. There is a big hobby trade show in early September, and I'm trying to get one ready. A friend with a lot more experience than myself has the plugs and is finishing them, and making the molds.

I'll take some photos of the fuse and tail plug for the second one and send them via email.

If you can't wait for that, take a look at the Build a curing oven for $50 thread and you can see a prototype..

Mike,

There aren't any pictures of the new Quickies on the web site, but you can get a glimpse in the thread mentioned in my response to Dan.

The F3D/30 has a polyester fuselage. The wing and stab are hollow with the skins being bagged 2 oz cloth and 2 mm obechi. They do not have cloth on the inside of the skins, which will be corrected on the Quickies. They have skinned hinges and they have carbon fiber capped spars. All of the linkages are external on the F3D/30 and it uses two wing servos.

I've been going around with them on using English hardware, which they don't want to do because they sell worldwide. So the first one (project name: The Martin) will not have internal tail or aileron linkages and will be like the F3D/30, but with an epoxy fuselage. It also has a more forgiving wing than The Smasher, which will have internal linkages. It is possible that they may not produce The Smasher and I will produce it, or have it produced domestically. A lot will depend on the response to The Martin.

Bill,

The plane is nothing like a Racer II, except The Martin does have a pure MH-18B wing on it. The Smasher has a pure NACA 66-012 on it (fully symmetrical), at least for the time being.

Both are based on a design I created a year ago based on the Lancair 320/IV/Columbia and the Cirrus SR20 and SR22. The V-tail placement is higher than any of your planes I've seen and is based on the Beech Bonanza V-35 tail placement relative to the thrust line. The fuselage design was tested using Martin Hepperle's airfoil tools and is aerodynamically sound for the Reynolds numbers for the speed range of 150-200 mph. Considering that the fuselage accounts for 75% of the drag in straight and level flight for a Q-500, I am proud of the design. It took a lot of work. Some will say it looks like a Neme-Q, however, it is significantly different, especially aerodynamically.

The tail is bolted on like a Neme-Q and the Texas Consortium Q-500 (aka the Wreaked'em). The tail is in the 69 square inch area, which is a little larger than most Quickies other than the Neme-Q at 76.

I compiled a spreadsheet that has most of the dimensions of most of the current Quickies, so that I could be sure the things I'm doing fit into the parameters of known performance.

A person who saw it this past weekend said it looked like a V-Vector. A lot of people will say it looks like "so and so" because there's only so much you can do within the Q-500 rules. I can guarantee you and everyone else that it is not a copy of anything.

I guess I'll have to post some pics now ... I wanted it to be a surprise.

Bill, would you explain how my plane is like yours? They are both pseudo pod and boom from the side, but so are a lot of other Quickies.

Yes, I still have the kit you sent me, and it was a freebie, with nothing I was supposed to do in return.

I can lay my fuselage sides over yours, and there is no comparison. In fact my fuselage sides are closer to the NEME-Q than to your plane. And I never built your plane, but the formers don't match up to the top shape of my plane. It is entirely my own. Look at the inside back cover of the most recent Flying magazine at the Cirrus ad. You will see the shape of my fuselage in their logo. Mine is based on aerodynamic engineering and has been through over 40 revisions. There is a reason the nose is lowered slightly on my plane. Yours is not. Can you tell me why I did that?

The tail of my plane is closer to a Bird of Prey in shape.

And I don't remember any of your planes being engineered for a bolt on tail.

The wing on The Martin is an MH-18B, which you didn't design. One of my friends was using that wing before you were. It's a nice forgiving airfoil, but not quite as fast as some others.

>> Nobody else cuts a fuse and wing cores like that except for me and the person that told me that I should be cutting my wings like this! <<

That means your plane isn't actually your own design then. And if that person had the knowledge about how fuselages should be designed, do you think he had an exclusive on it?

You shouldn't be pissed. You have no reason to be. I on the other hand do, so leave it alone, or be gone. You are crossing over into the personal attack zone, and I will not tolerate that here.

Interesting thread here.........

1. We have a discussion about 424/APRA/NEPRO/etc.
2. We have a big-headed National Chumpion.....
3. We have people arguing over Q500 designs.....

Here are my opinions...take them as you will....

1. I would like to see 424 flown at the Nats! I don't feel that the current 424 rules fit what we should have in an entry level class due to two reasons already mentioned in this thread. I don't think high $ composite airplanes should be allowed, and I don't agree with the 16,500 rpm rule for reasons already mentioned--under what conditions is the engine not to be "capable" of over 16,500 rpm's?

2. What's there to say? THE GUY HAS A REALLY BIG HEAD!!

3. These arguments should be kept private between the individuals involved. There isn't much of anything that can be done on a Q500 anymore that can be considered "original". Every airplane out there shares AT LEAST one major design feature (besides the dimensions in the rules) with EVERY other Q500 in existence!

Just my opinions.....right or wrong...

GS

Gary,

Regarding your #3 ... I absolutely agree ... however, when someone starts making malicious comments in public about me being a thief, I am going to defend myself, otherwise the person who made the assertions may appear to have validity.

MikeyD asked about the all molded composite for under $200 that will be a reality by the end of the year. That and my response were relevant to the discussion, because the issue of composite planes was brought up. Cheap all molded composite planes will become more and more common. The thing that makes the all molded composite planes in racing expensive is domestic cottage industry production.

Bill Vargas chose to call me a thief.

All airplane designs borrow from other designs. The Racer II is not some brilliant piece of innovation that is entirely original. I stated in my message what I borrowed from. Most of it is from full scale aircraft. The Cherokee series as well as most modern designs have the widest part of the fuselage at the rear of the wing. This is due to a lack of fillets on those planes. It is very hard to design fillets that do not induce drag. It has been known for more than twenty to thirty years that the so-called "Coke Bottle" shape is an efficient way of handling airflow behind the wing, especially when there is no wing fillet. I'm not even sure if the Racer II uses this techique. The side profile of a fuselage has little to do with the airflow behind the wing when compared to the top profile. Check out the wing to stab area on the Shark. Notice how there are no straight surfaces in the critical areas. This is something that I used on my design. The Racer II and many other Q-500 designs have a lot of drag inducing straight areas in critical areas like from the firewall to the wing. My plane is actually fatter in certain areas than many Q-500 designs. As I said, I did a lot of work running simulations to try to optimize my plane.

I will attempt to split out the discussion about The Smasher versus the Racer II.

I'm so glad I've learned that you were the developer of the MH-18B airfoil. I certainly thought that Martin Hepperle was the creator of the airfoil. Plus his analysis that it would be a great airfoil for a Q-500 wasn't attributed to you. If I had only known ...

Regarding the NACA 66, you told Dave Norman that you copied the Vortex airfoil and modified it. Dave said he couldn't tell any difference. I guess I missed the News Flash - Bill Vargas develops the ultimate airfoil and donates it to NACA. And you didn't even hide the fact that you were using a Vortex wing on your 10th place NATS winning so-called "Racer II". Maybe with a better fuselage design you would have picked up 2-3 seconds per lap and finished even higher. Try my fuselage, because I can almost guarantee you it is better, and for the last time, it is not a copy.

Bob Mellon will not release anyone's airfoil or order information. He seems to have ethics. Don't they teach that where you come from?

Your logic capabilities are disgraceful ... you've called me a danger to racing. They call that transference. Look it up.

And another thing. I was designing my own planes before you were even born. I made my first plug, pulled parts, and built planes froms them when I was 13 in 1971 ... here's a photo of one of them. Notice the pod and boom shape, and it wasn't even new when I did it.

Hey Bill
You guys must fly really really big airplanes out there in the West Coast. Your plane looks like it took half your driveway. And could taxi down 1/2 of your street with very little room to spare.

Just kidding, nice profile though, I like the photography.

TC
Mikey D

Don,

When I first looked at Bills airfoil, yes it did look very similar to the airfoil of the Vortex. However after fixing my midaired Vortex wing, and attempting to fit it to a Racer II fuze it wasn't really close at all.

Bill, may have used the Naca 66 as a basis for his airfoil but he obviously made some modifications to it. I don't even think I can make my racer II fuze sides fit this wing without a lot of work.

As to Bill using a better design to finishing higher, thats a load of crap.

I was Bills caller, and had called him a cut in the second to last heat of the finals which cost him a couple points. Going into the last heat, Bill played it safe and took 2 points to finish in the top 10.

Without the cut, fully my fault, Bill could have finished in the top 5. It had nothing to do with his design.

Bill Vargas, Don Stegall, please take this discussion offline. I understand both your concerns/thoughts, but I don't believe this open forum is the appropriate place to discuss them.

Don, your plane looks great.

Bill, your plane looks great.

BTW, they both look just like something I drew in drafting class in the 10th grade (13years ago) after being beaten by a very similar looking plane flown by Jim Katz(I think) in a SEMPRA race in Smyrna, TN.

Bill has no right to be claiming I'm stealing his design or designs.

In your own words, Dave:

>>
Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:03 PM

Bill has no reason to be upset.

Theres only so much you can do with a quickee in regards to shape.

I do have one of his new ones and two of his old ones. Heck, Bill made an identical copy of the Vortex wing. He says he changed it slightly, but it looks identical to me.

Your fuze is similar, but its obviously not a copy.
<<

Just because something looks similar, there is no reason to call it a copy, and to call someone a thief and a liar. I have a Racer II kit. The old one. Bill sent it to me unsolicited for listing the plane on PylonWorld.com. My design is not even close to being the same. The new one apparently never materialized. And the different versions are apparently all called Racer II, even when they have a Vortex wing on them.

So who is the thief here?

I guess I better hurry up and get my Q-40 designs out so that he doesn't claim I stole those, too.

Matchless,

I would rather this not be in public, but Bill called me a thief and a liar in public, and I'm not going to sit back and take it.

Funny you should mention Jimmy Katz. Jimmy Katz learned how to make fiberglass fuselages from my father and myself. He spent many hours in our shop. He was there when I explained the theory behind the fillets on the Stegall Super Minnow (aka the Boney Toni), and fillet theory in general. Jimmy Katz and Greg Doe (who lived in NC, then Smyrna) went on to do many great things in racing. They introduced high aspect ratio wings to FAI pylon. Guess what? In the mid 70's Jimmy saw the high aspect ratio wings I was using on my X-15 powered FAI speed planes, and we talked about the usefulness of them on pylon planes. The problem was that materials weren't available to make the wings strong enough.

And last year, Jimmy, who is a captain for US Air now and lives less than 20 minutes from me, and I had discussions about what the perfect Q-500 fuselage would be like. That was my starting point. I've done my own research and simulations, to the point of modeling the engine and muffler. Which, BTW, is why my design has the nose drooped slightly. An extra 1/8" was needed to reduce the venturi effect between the fuselage and the muffler.

The proof will be in the performance.

I don't appreciate Bill claiming I stole his design. I too, hope this conversation is over. I split it out of the 424 Unification thread because it was disrupting that thread. I left the backup of the original thread so that all can see how we got here. Let me give you a hint: I didn't start it. All I did was mention an all molded composite plane that I am working on.

Bill,

I actually went to college and studied the engineering process in both the electrical and software fields. I also had access to a wind tunnel, and the aero guys enjoyed putting the little 1/2A proto plane in my picture in the tunnel. It did very well considering the requirements of the 1/2A proto class and the engine profile. The high aspect ratio wing (7.2:1) was very low drag for level flight, which is what the plane was designed for.

I had a lot of friends in the aero department, both students and teachers, and I learned a lot from them.

A lot of my next year will be spent designing and building airplanes, and I will practice when I can. After they cut the corn off of my new flying field, I hope to get it leveled and planted as soon as possible. Then I'll be able to practice more next year.

I don't expect to be competitive at the national level until 2004-2005. That was my plan from the start. My next couple of years are going to be spent developing planes and techniques, and practicing and racing when I can.

Knowing a lot doesn't make someone competitive at the National level. It takes a lot of practice and participation to become competitive. There are a lot of TV analysts that know a lot more about the technical aspects of a game than the head coaches that actually win the games. The NASCAR team managers know more about the car than the driver does. The driver specializes in driving talent, the team manager specializes in organization skills, and his engineers specialize in aerodynamics, structural analysis, etc.

You seem to equate performance ability with knowledge. Maybe that's because you're a mechanic, and not an engineer. Not looking at the big picture is a rather infantile view.

Just to clear this up a little. Bill did NOT steal anything from us. We suggested he try and build something like the NACA66 in a foam wing type. The wing he used on his fuse at the Nats was from a plane he bought from me.. he broke the fuse, so he built his own and hung it under the undamaged wing. no big deal to me....

Bill was very considerate and asked us before he did anything that would make us upset. He is also the most honest racers and personable guys I race with. We injoy him as a friend and competitor..


MR. VORTEX!
Travis' caller.....

Ok guys, you have been at each others throats for awhile and it doesn't belong here in the forums. I am closing this one down and Marc and I expect you to refrain from this kind of posting in the future. We will not take sides on this matter as we don't know what transpired except through what has been posted here, and we cannot make any judgement from that. If this continues the thread will not be closed, but deleted. Please take this back door if you want to continue it.