Talk:Rutan Quickie/Archive 1

Merger
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)


 * No, I won't revert my own edit, that's ridiculous. You should say why you disagree on the article talk page.


 * Articles don't have to have exactly the same topic to be merged. The question is not whether they are exactly the same thing or related but different things, the question is whether they could be better presented as one article or two. Just look at their first sentences. If Quickie Aircraft ever made any aircraft other than the Quickie, you should edit the article to reflect that. —Keenan Pepper 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Merging the two articles won't necessarily create a better presentation. Presenting manufacturer and product on the same page will mess with the categories, as well as create some level of confusion. While the level of pop culture recognition is certainly different, do you propose merging De Lorean Motor Company with De Lorean DMC-12 just because it was the only car ever produced? The Quickie was one of the first truly popular composite homebuilt aircraft, and both articles could be expanded. It's only a matter of time. ericg ✈ 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a good example; I never knew that about the De Lorean. I see your point. —Keenan Pepper 00:57, 14 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.

Quickie or Q2 ?
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)

Canard Vs. Tandem Wing
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)


 * You bring up a good point, as neither the biplane nor the tandem wing articles mention the why, they just say they aren't the same. So, I'll look into doing some editing. In the meantime, the difference is that in a biplane, the lift from both wings is located roughly in the same place fore-and-aft, in relation to the center of gravity. (There are a few exceptions, like the Beech Staggerwing, but even there, the center of lift is still relatively close.) The point of a tandem wing is that you spread the center of lift of each wing farther apart, thereby greatly extending the CG envelope, making the plane much more stable and, theoretically, safer. That has always been Burt's goal, safer aircraft. And yes, sometimes the forward wing of a tandem wing plane can be considered a canard (aeronautics), although, strictly speaking, a canard functions in the same role as a horizontal stabilizer, to stabilize the pitching moment around the CG. Hope this helps. Akradecki 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Canard is stabilizing ?
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

Engine choices
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

Quickie reverts

 * Infobox image
 * I disagree with the revert of the images. The article title is "Rutan Quickie" : that means the single-seat original "Quickie" and not the Q2 (not a Rutan design). The infobox is not consistent with the title. Also, the infobox title (Quickie) is false : the image is a Q2. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead "However, propeller clearance is limited and the Quickie is rather vulnerable to prop-strikes, although the trigear version avoids this danger."
 * False, there is no tri-gear "Quickie" variant. This revert reintroduces confusion previously corrected. Plxdesi2 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Specifications
 * These specs were sourced. There is no valid reason to supress this information. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Variants"
 * I disagree with that title ; there is only one "Quickie".

"Rutan Model 49 : The original concept design by Burt Rutan."
 * This is not a "variant", but a fully different aircraft : a preliminary project of canard configuration.

"Rutan Model 54 Quickie : Prototype aircraft produced at the Rutan Aircraft Factory."
 * Not a variant (following the normal model), but the prototype

"Quickie : The original model has one seat and is powered by an 18 horsepower (14 kW) engine"
 * Not a variant : THE standard Quickie

"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."
 * Not a Quickie variant, but another aircraft : a two-seater, fully different (fuselage, engine, dimensions, building process). The only common feature is the general configuration (and the market name).

"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]"
 * Just in that case, a Q2 variant.
 * IMO, this article needs to be splitted or clearly written in two parts : Quickie and Q2. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not uncommon in aircraft articles to list the prototype and the main production model as "Variants", a paper project less so. If the sources say the Q2 is an entirely different beast, then perhaps a second article should be considered. But on the whole they are similar in layout - is there that more difference between Quickie and Q2 than there is between a Spitfire Mk I and the Spitfire Mark 24? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * VariEze and Long-EZ are very similar (two-seaters, same layout, same designer), but are not confused. In this case we have a single seat 18 hp, 220 lb and a two-seater 65 to 105 hp (4 to 5 times more), more than two times heavier (500 lb) : different machines. Is a 1500 hp two-seater fighter a "variant" of a 300 hp single-seat fighter ? Spit power factor from Mk I to Mk 24 is about two (1000 to 2000 hp), with similar aircraft dimensions. Plxdesi2 (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The way WikiProject Aircraft/page content works the article can describe one version and then have the others as variants, but given the desire for multiple sets of specs and such I really think this article should be split into several different articles - all can be tied together with a nav box listing all of them. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Canard versus Tandem, CG of pilot
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."
 * As you know, in a canard layout, as the engine is back, the pilot has to be not close to CG but in front of it in order to balance the engine weight. In case of very light aircraft, the pilot weight variation may cause a too large CG shift. It seems to me important to reintroduce this key design point, according to this reference. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"The plain elevators were given slots to improve the lifting ability of the forward wing."
 * Someone has a reference for this information ? Plxdesi2 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a reference at the time it was added - from the Flight International article.
 * If Rutan says exactly that he put the pilot at place X in the Quickie for a given reason then do add it. However you can't necessarily add together separate facts eg Rutan writing about some fault of his first draft and some other writer on canards in general - that might fall under synthesis. You can introduce both elements as separate statements and let the reader decide. Since Rutan didn't mention engine or pilot placement in the article, I have moved the note/cite forward of that statement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Since Rutan didn't mention engine or pilot placement in the article"
 * Rutan wrote "...excessive CG travel with pilot weight variation." That does mean the pilot CG is NOT located close to aircraft CG ; that is technically crystal clear ; the reader has not to understand something else about that. Second, this Rutan article includes a sketch of the proposed tandem wing model 54 : the side view gives the CG position of the aircraft (a rather rare information in a preliminary inacurate and not to scale drawing ; that proves the importance of this point in Rutan mind), and the reader can see the pilot located close to the CG. Those two informations describe the issue and the solution : "the Model 54, solved the problems of the Model 49" (too low reynolds and excessive CG travel). Third, both sketches give the engines locations, and the weight engine (80 lb). Contrary to your statement, those informations include engine and pilot placements and are sufficient to avoid falling under synthesis. Plxdesi 17 may

Quickie design
According to Canard Pusher (Rutan) :
 * in CP16 : "Burt did the initial 3-view in may 77. Tom, Gene and Burt worked on drawings and engine development during june and july."
 * in CP17 : "Gene did the majority of the construction work, Burt the design definition, Tom the drawings."
 * in Sport Aviation article : "Gene worked with me full time and did all the firewall-forward (engine installation) design and development. After the aircraft was flying, Tom joined us full time and converted the shop drawings to the format for printing the Quickie plans.
 * Contrary to "the three of them worked on the design", Rutan seems to be the main (maybe sole) designer of the aircraft ; and Sheehan as powerplant designer. Plxdesi2 (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Those quotes do indicate Jewett was involved and together with these snippets from two issues of Flight International " the Quickie, designed in conjunction with Tom Jewett and Gene Sheehan, who now manage the project as the Quickie Aircraft Corporation." and "The Quickie, being de veloped in conjunction with Tom Jewett and Gene Sheehan, is a tail- dragger" - all suggest it was the three together - in various contributions  - who brought the plane to fruition. It may depend on the exact definition of "design" whether it specifically means the engineering calculations and diagrams or is used as a synonym for "aircraft" to add variety to the text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Gene and his partner, Tom Jewett, had launched their business in 1978 with the single-place Quickie, a Rutan design to match the Onan 18-hp engine." in Quickie page . Plxdesi 17 may — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In sport aviation : "In the spring of 1977 Gene Sheehan ... and Tom Jewett ... proposed to me that I design a scaled-down single-place VariEze". Final layout is indeed Rutan "Design" (concept sense). plxdesi 17 may — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Plain or slotted flaps
"The plain elevators were given slots to improve the lifting ability of the forward wing."
 * Someone has a reference for this information ? Plxdesi2 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a reference at the time it was added - from the Flight International article.
 * As far as I know of, Quickie (and Dragonfly, sure) uses plain flaps ; Flight International 14 april 1979 photo (page 1161) do not show external brackets (I'am not sure of the term) ala VariEze opening a slot as the flap is deflected. David Lednicer, aerodynamic expert : "The EZs have external elevator hinges because the canards are really slotted flaps. Some canard aircraft (Quickies, Dragonflys, etc.) use a simpler plain flap on the canard." in.

...So I went to Quickie drawings : elevator is a plain flap. In quickheads.com :. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"...increasing effective aspect ratio"
"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)
 * I would say that is pretty suspect. Very little of that para is properly referenced and so that can probably be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done! In similar vein, an editor has written: "The forward wing provides around 60% of the lift."  Is this true?  The forward wing is smaller! Arrivisto (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I may have found the answer: the forewing and rear wings had similar chords, but the forewing was about 40% thicker, which would have given more lift. I'd read that the quickie had laminar flow wings that were adversely affected by rain, dust or bits of grass; but looking at the wing sections, it seems that only the rear wing is laminar flow, and the forewing is just too thick.  However, being mounted much higher than the forewing, the rear wing would be less susceptible to pick up contamination from the runway or strip. Arrivisto (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)