PaulL

Just a correction. KLS was not in bankrupcy. KLS was the company formed after "Glassic Composites" bankrupcy. KLS was renamed to Advanced Composite Design and was still in operation last year I talked to Stan Montgomery. Haven't chatted with him lately. You can get more info on my SQ2000 web page http://www.abri.net/sq2000/default.php SQ2000 is not basically different from Cozy or LE. But its the coolest looking canard fuselage. I get stares and questions everywhere I fly. And I love that entry/exit from the ground. The main problems I found with the SQ2000 were the Infinity style retracts (caused me a failed gear landing) and imbalanced ailerons. I fixed the retracts with some proper reinforcements and fixed the aileron imbalance. Remaining problems were typical of homebuilt construction. AFAIK there is a complete SQ2000 kit available - phone (435) 730-2911. Thats the one I would get if I started again.

The pin failed. But the brace did not come off for a while. There is a shoulder extension from the trunion plate into an inset in the brace. So the brace moved back and forth slopily on that shoulder - hard to describe - until it slipped off. The back and forth sloppy motion is what I think caused the alternating left/right bouncy skid marks. If I knew that quickly, it may have been possible just to turn on more hudraulic pressure on and hold it there - hindsight..... It was not a "shimmy" but it felt like a poggo stick with the plane bouncing up (on the right wheel spring) and down rapidly after touchdown - weird sensation. I am redesigning the pin (bolt) anchor to improve it - the bolt will be held from two sides of the brace rather than current one side. I saw Infinity Aerospace gear current design at airshows and some brace connections have only one side pin anchor and may fail like in my case. Initially I had some dandy rough landings - tough little plane - I am better at it now. But whats so new about RG failings, even in certifieds?

> BTW just recently had my gear broke down .... I am bussy fixing it. I still prefer the retracts - less drag in flight and more drag when down for a real speed brake effect. I'll just patiently take the time and design a reinforcement of the failed (brace upper) pivot. The other two pins/pivots have been reinforced and did not contribute to the RG failure. You can see the FAA accident report at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060424X00479&ntsbno=CHI06CA111&akey=1 However I think "substantial" damage rating is a bit high. I figure it will be about $500 materials to fix it - plus lots of my patient spare time. The biggest cost was hauling it home 900 miles by road. Anybody need a canard hauler jig? See it at my website: http://www.abri.com/sq2000/

Steve, So you really are not building an SQ-2000 - but something similar. SQ-2000 is similar to Velocity. What will you call your new design? SI-2006? When can we see some photos or drawings? Why not start your own design section in the forum for your SI-2006? Not sure what the comment relevance about "JD Newman will EVER sell his gear to ..." is. Will you be using his gear and will he sell it to you on credit? BTW just recently had my gear broke down on landing. I think there is a need to seriously reinforce some things on the retracts. Stan M. also had the gear fail on him twice - probably the reason he is having the fixed gear option.

I briefly dropped by at Dayton on my flight to Sun&Fun. Saw Stan Montgomery there. There are a couple of options that may affect the SQ2000. One is an fixed gear option - see photo at http://www.abri.com/sq2000/sq-fg.jpg (recent photo of Stan behind the hoist chain at the factory). The fixed gear has a 10 foot stance which will have good taxiing stability in winds as compared to typical 6 foot stance. The other news is a turbine engine (from ???) that Stan is experimenting with for the SQ2000. ------------------------------------ http://www.abri.com/sq2000/

Thank you for being more forthright admitting that you have a bias. Very few people will do that. I am pragmatic: you buy the kit, construct it and fly it. What else does a viable choice mean? If you read my website ( http://www.abri.com/sq2000 ), I expressed concern about KLS staying in business in 2001 when I bought the kit - so I purchased everything in order to be able to finish it (Joel Conard did the same thing). Here it is 2005 and Stan is still in business, same factory, same place. Want his phone number? Stan is a prolific designer/builder. In the last few years he has designed and tested a kit to compete with Cesna caravan - the kit was displayed at 2002, Sun-N-Fun. Stan has been very helpfull throughout my construction period as he is to other builders. This year I trounced a couple of RG springs and he gave free replacements. He has done similar things for other builders. From all my encouners with him, he is a friendly, sociable fellow - although somewhat timid so would likely loose political public battles. I must admit that I have a bias too which is that Stan stays in the kit business so I can continue getting the good tech support that he has given so far.

BTW last Friday, I tried to post a note to clarify Marc's missunderstanding of my CG statement in the Yahoo canard-aviators group. But so far it has not been posted yet. Your forum format makes it easier to reply right away.

> >>>Apparently<<< (doubts?) Stan was invited to investigate a > fatal crash of a kitplane his company manufactured. I don't know the details > of the disagreement between Stan and the 'particular person',.... John, Do we speak English? How many times I have to say this. 1. The only person who "suggested" it to Stan was me. STAN WAS NOT INVITED by Bob Tilley or the rest of the team. Did you ask Tilley if he did? I did give Bob Stan's phone number and suggested he could phone him after finding out that the other person was not on the team but apparently that was not so important to Bob. I have records of our emails. 2. The information Stan got from NTSB was that it was not an airframe issue. And indeed the current report does not make it an airframe issue except for the seat restraint - which up to the builder - and the silly comments about the CG factory testing. The last issue is really the only one I corrected and pragmatically the whole thing is not an issue unless you try to make it one. In my opinion it really turns out that Stan did not even need to be invited since it is not an airframe issue. If you have quarels with non-racing car seat restraints then talk to Velocity folks too, talk to zilion other certified and experimental aircraft owners too, who have automobile like seats with simple restraints. This "Stan chose not to participate" is really an irrelevant, emotional, political gobledygook. I personally, have no plans removing my sliding/reclining seats and replacing them with a racing car type of restraints/cage. I think this pride in your own aircraft type has gone too far.

I'd like to add a conjecture to the scenario. Maybe Paul Conner deliberately tried to land flat hoping to survive that way instead of forward collision with trees. He bled all the speed with the 90 degree turn and then leveled and pitched the aircraft up (falling leaf maneuver) near the ground and then pancaked. He was a skilled pilot and could have done that. What he did not count on was the backward reaction force of the fixed gear on impact.

While for the most part this is not an SQ2000 airframe issue, I appreciate and commend the effort to keep it objective and have learned a few practical things. 1. Use a 45 degree angle to attempt turning back to airport. 2. Do a gear up landing (I have full retracts) in rough terrain - on crash the fixed gear reaction apparently catapulted Paul backward from his seat. 3. Try to keep some speed up in emergency landing - don't try to land at stall speed. 4. Watch W&B especially canards. Although I have tested my unit at rear CG, I stay away from it by at least 1". You are welcome to download the "free" builder software with a CG calculator I made http://www.abri.com/sq2000/Homebuiltlog.html 5. While it is more difficult to build jet fighter like restraints in many 4+ seater today's aircraft (with reclining seats) because of the greater surrounding "living" space, this accident was a very specific situation that may never happen again. An example: if Paul Conner survived he would have no trouble getting ("falling") out of the aircraft - while in a tight restrained aircraft, individuals sometimes get trapped and burned alive. Which situation risks are more probable is a better question. Another example: because of the comfort/convenience factor and less probability that a four+ seat automobile sedan will be involved in a rollover or crash than a racing car, sedans are not equiped with extensive restraints and rigid seat and body cage structures that race cars have - even knowing that it could save lives. One exception I take is the statement: "We do NOT have any evidence that SQ/KLS ever did any stall/deep stall tests on the SQ2K.." I find that silly. How would any kit manufacturer not do CG range tests. SQ2000 has been around for over 7 years and Stan Mongomery distinctly informed me that tests were done from 2.5" in front to 2.5" behind the CG published range. It would have been simple to pick up the phone and ask Stan what tests were done (irregardles that he was not on the team) instead of "we do not have any evidence..." - a nice catch all. I could believe the moon is made of green cheese and state that "I do not have any evidence to the contrary.." while not bothering to find out from those who have been on the moon. BTW. Stan Montgomery was not invited by Bob Tilley to be on the "team". Bob asked me to check with Stan, earlier in the game. But Stan was not happy that another particular person was apparently on it. Later that member was not put on the team but no further effort was made to invite Stan. I also asked for some information - crash photo's - but received nothing until I discovered this "final report".

For cheap dust filtration you could get a $10 20x20 box fan and tape a 20x20 furnace filter on the back of it. See http://www.abri.com/sq2000/dustfilter.jpg

I have the Dynon EFIS-D10 now flying for over a year and have no glitches with it. Easy daylight readable, etc. and fly by it exclusively. I do have a standard attitude, altimeter and speed indicator as backup which always agree with the Dynon. The only thing not working for me yet is the magnetic heading (internal magnetometer). I tried calibrating it once and did not succeed - will try again someday. In the meantime I use the GPS heading (most often) or the magnetic compass (seldom).

It gets cold here in SD in January. Doing testing on my SQ2000 and noticed that on cool days the carb temperature actually drops after startups and then after engine warmup the carb temp goes above OAT. Is this because of the hot temps inside the pusher cowling? Any experienced comments welcomed. Want to avoid carb icing. ------------------------------- SQ2000: www.abri.com/sq2000

Making test flights on my SQ2000 today it got a little chilly and I tried my overhead/rear cabin heater. It works great, pumping heat into the cabin - except for the toes. The cowling cooling scoops intake pressure helped to push the heated air into the cabin by itself - even without the fan I built to suck it in. But I do have some vent exhaust holes for the cabin which probably helps to suck the cabin pressure out. Also I have just two ports on rear of cowling rather than big opening which may not build up so much pressure in the cowling. So there is really no need to build heavy oil cooler stuff or electric heaters - well maybe I'll get some sock heaters. For more info you can see some details of my heater/cooler setup in the http://www.abri.com/sq2000/20.html engine heat muff discussion and some comments about the overhead fan in the http://www.abri.com/sq2000/18.html interior discussion

I have an SQ2000, similar to Velocity and I really appreciate the gull wing doors so you don't have to climb up like in a Cozy or EZ. And the Velocity XL will have bigger payload amd more pilot/passenger - for Cozy IV it is about 410lb and its "cozy". Of course you will probably find the Velocity more expensive to build and somewhat more thirsty. There's a CAFE flight report for Cozy IV at: http://members.eaa.org/home/flight_reports/cozy_markiv.html ----------------------------------------------------- Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

Just want to put my two bits about canard aircraft and safety/insurance. A canard (pusher) has two advantages in ground operations: 1. if it does colide with other aircraft or objects the damage is likely less than by a tractor which may slice up other aircraft or objects which it colides with; 2. If a person is near a pusher prop when starting up it will likely "push" (blow) the person away from the aircraft rather than the oposite effect from a tractor. I wonder if insurance companies consider these factors?

Anybody know of a source for slick aircraft tires for the nose? My SQ2000 does not have (or need) air brake which helps deflect nose tire spray. I figure a slick tire without groves would throw less stuff at the prop.

It turns out the problem was the wing alignment. I added an extra washer to the right wing upper bolt. Now it tracks fine and I can simply use the auto-pilot for "roll-trim".

During my SQ2000 flight training and now my own test flights I am finding that there is a significant difference when the RG is down. The lowered RG with its "rough" profile is really an effective speed brake, and I think the empty wheel wells also add to drag - like two little parachutes especially at high angle of attack. With RG down I seldom go beyond 140kts.

My SQ2000 has a slight roll to the right - it may be due to engine torque, did not notice so much when coasting down to the runway. Is there a common way to add roll trim to canards? ------------------------------ My website: www.abri.com/sq2000

I noticed that some canard cowlings have two round air exit ports and some simply have one large opening at rear. What are the pro's / con's of each. I have two holes. Will a single larger opening improve cooling?

I got my SQ2000 canard kit just before I finished my license. I figure that I have a better feel for building flying qualities into the bird - safety, flying convenience features, etc. From a strictly economical view, its much cheaper to leave the license until near finished - you don't have to rent to keep up the skill. But then its pretty iffy to do initial flights with 50+ hours behind your belt. I flew my bird first after only about 120 hours and considered that low. -------------------------------------------- SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

If you got a little extra money you might want to use a NG6A roller bearing nose gear pivot to help prevent shimmy. More info at http://home.comcast.net/~unick3/Jacks%20Website/ng-6.html and http://www.eznoselift.com/ I installed such one on my SQ2000 canard. ----------------------------------------- http://www.abri.com/sq2000

Jon, There are reinforcements - glassed in aluminum tubes - at al four door posts (between windows and doors). Otherwise I think there is no torsional problem with canard. At least four of these birds have been flying before mine and nobody brought that up. Don't think Velocity has that problem with similar door design either. But got to watch high winds with those gull wing doors. The factory model had their doors damaged when a turboprop blew into it.l

Finally got to it. June 2 2004. The flight was brief - 25 minutes including taxiing. The bird took off and landed fine inspite that I took off down wind in confusion and had about a 7kts cross wind. Nice to have a 6800 ft runway. Somebody asked me if I enjoyed it. I was so bussy watching the numbers and flying, didn't think about it. But sure glad I had 4 hours of flight training at the KLS Composites factory recently. Canards are not hard to fly but different. From the initial observation it appears to handle fine with good control. I left all the gear down and did not exceed about 120kts. For those that are interested: The IVO prop worked fine for the short operating range i tested. At takeoff it had real good punch (or maybe it was the combo of 220HP engine, electronic ignition...). And when I reached about 110 kts I had to increase the pitch to keep it from over revving. The adjustment was smooth and short meaning it had plenty of pitch left for higher speeds. The Dynon EFIS-D10 worked well too - agreed with the backup horizon, speed and altitude meters. There are some things to be tweaked out yet: The radio worked intermittently, the oil temperature was near top limit, and the charging system had problems. I am currently working on those things. Just got a bigger AeroClassic 13 row oil cooler to replace the 6 row tiny Positech 4211 cooler. Seems that the 220 HP Franklin engines need big oil coolers. The CHT was fine at cruise but near limit at climb. It may be partially due to insufficient oil cooling and I am told that new/rebuilt engines run a little hotter for first few hours. Guess patience is the game for homebuilding. Initially I was expecting to finish the KIT after one year, then it stretched into two then to two and a half. And now I find there are still things to do. But near three years (2200 hrs) is better than 10 - 15 years I've seen - I'm 61 and don't have 15 years for a homebuilt. Hope to make it to Oshkosh this year unless time constraints and parts delivery hold me back. One thing about Stan Montgomery SQ2000 design, its a beautiful bird, everybody likes the looks. You can see more details on my website: http://www.abri.com/sq2000 All of you homebuilders, hang in there, keep trucking, you'll get there.