Jon Matcho

Interesting engine and great walk-through! http://www.continental.aero/diesel/engines/cd155.aspx

I did not know all that... thanks! There’s some mention of the Bateleur in another thread here.

I am not selling my Tri-Q200 project, but do want to sell my unstarted Q2 kit which is in this post: I'm not doing the Q2 kit because I have since acquired this separate Tri-Q200 project/refurb shown in this thread. Once that's flying I will move back to my Cozy IV project.

Looks like a Solitaire to me! I would very much like to see a plans-built option for the Solitaire, but there are not many examples at all to verify references. I suspect Ole and Kjeld had access to an actual Solitaire?

@Stack and anyone else who might be interested in seeing a tour of a great example of a Quickie TriQ-200, I put the details up on the Calendar here for the Zoom meeting tomorrow (September 12th). This one is of particular interest to me as Jerry was the hangar mate of the builder of the TriQ-200 that I now have (to repair).

Sorry to hear about your troubles, but sounds like you made a good decision.

The fuselage, tail, and engine are currently separated, so I wouldn't consider it an airplane. Still, it's in Martinsville, NJ if you ever want to take a look. You should keep reading and make sure you're comfortable. There are many pros and cons to consider, and most important is to match an airplane to your goals and needs.

Both the Dragonfly and the Q2 are good aircraft with similar qualities. The Qs are a bit faster, but not by much. The LS1 canard is what you want on a Q2/200, yes. I have a Quickie TriQ-200 project in NJ that's NOT flying if you want to look it over. Also, there's a builder/flyer Zoom meeting coming up on 9/12 this week that you can check out. I'll post the information here later, but you can find it being discussed on the Quickie mailing list here: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main

@Evan so did you get some more information to convince you on this one? Or are you just "going for it". Regardless, good luck and let me know if you'd like some help to unload at its new home (around Allentown PA I assume).

Welcome! You could do all sorts of things with that, and you can always fix the foam blocks together later if anything was too big for one session. Still, as Kent pointed out it would be faster not to bother unless you wanted to achieve something different/unique. Not yet, but there’s some movement with the Open-EZ to achieve that for the Long-EZ and Cozy dimensions. Bill Allen is the pioneer with working to fit the Deltahawk to a Long-EZ. I recall seeing a recent comment on the Canard Aviators mailing list (I think) that he remarked of the pain and suffering he’s gong through with it and I got the impression he would never do it again. It’s a massive amount of work to get the kinks out of new engines, and the Deltahawk is similar effort to an auto conversion in my opinion (for what that’s worth). Keep in mind that the completion rate is very low. Only a minority of those starting will actually finish. You need to be picky about how many projects you add to the already challenging project (although I’d be thrilled to have access to that CNC machine 😉 ). It’s about time you posted, welcome to the forum! 🙂 On behalf of those actually posting the interesting and informative stuff for you to read, thank you!

I envy you.

CP 25 = Canard Pusher Newsletter #25. I'll get them uploaded to the Downloads section here. @GMalatrasi what CAD software are you using?

@Kent Ashton that's the answer I came up with for the station points by dividing 103" by 10 segements to get 10" with 3" remaining, which I am GUESSING aligns with what was intended based on the "not to scale" diagram. I do not see how one truly knows these are 10" increments and not 9.9" (or even 5.0" with the "not to scale" qualifier) with whatever is left over at the end? I'd bet this is covered in a Canard Pusher, or old Canard Aviators (C-A) email list discussion. @GMalatrasi I totally understand your point... the Long-EZ plans leave a lot to be desired. I am more familiar with the Cozy IV plans and they're better in this particular area, but still not at the level you're looking for. The more I look at the Long-EZ plans, the more I feel the need to update the plans.

The current Open-EZ 2D PDF drawings are sufficient, but are still pending the revisions that are detailed in the first post of this thread here: The effort is ongoing, but not at the point of being able to fully "show otherwise". Several folks have contributed various items, and have expressed a willingness to do more. The project is getting additional structure and is clearly not dead. You can see an example of progress from the official Open-EZ download section being recently added here at the Canard Zone (see link above, and the Downloads menu). The first step is to move forward with the Open-EZ Tandem 2.0 drawings in CAD as faithful representations of the Long-EZ drawings. After that a plans rewrite is possible but is much more ambitious as it would require a "proof of plans" aircraft to be built before truly being viable. Folks, including myself, hesitate to jump into this as liability concerns begin to surface from imagining a widow/er blaming the Open-EZ plans on the death of their former spouse. So true. This is why the Open-EZ Tandem 2.0 effort is 100% aligned with the stock Long-EZ. Several folks have pointed out missing dimensions which will get resolved with the effort to bring into CAD from Long-EZ paper. Many folks have done this, but do keep in mind that just because something is in CAD does not make it inherently any more accurate than the hand-drawn source. In other words, someone's CAD drawing could be very different and even incorrect to the point of being dangerous. Stay tuned...