Justin Jones

For a questionable structure, you can always proof load to over 3.8g, up to 6g. If it fails below the intended load factor, then you just saved yourself a bailout, or worse! The test load distribution will require some whiteboard artwork to apply the classic Schrenk approximation, see NACA-TM-948. Keep in mind, the Canard and Wing each carry different loads, depending on actual gross weight and the CG position. The main wing is likely to be most heavily loaded at the rearmost CG. Finding the distance from this aft CG position to the Aerodynamic Center of a swept wing with strakes will take some math, but this problem is well documented in textbooks, as many airline planforms match this description. The canard is easier; being straight and constant chord. The distances are simply lever (moment) arms and can be used to determine what percentage of the weight is carried by Canard and Wing. (It is actually much more complicated for the exact solution, but this method may be able to get within a few percent. And it's better than test flying it to find out!). This might take as many hours to calculate the ideal load distribution as the actual load test will require, unless You find someone who has already done this homework for You. You're simply looking for what percentage of the maximum intended gross weight, multiplied by load factor (G's), is to be applied to the rear wing, and how that mass should be distributed along the span using the Schrenk distribution. There are probably EAAers near you who have performed load tests and can help, or qualified engineers, so seek them out. If you just want to know the condition of the concealed metal wing attachments: xRay NDT is ridiculously effective for this sort of thing. If you cant find a company in the phone book, try locating a welded pipeline or steel structure project. Find a pickup truck there with a fiberglass doghouse on the back and bring that guy pizza and a 6 pack. (YMMV). ~ JJ

Thank You. Those pages failed to save and became blank for an unknown reason. It saved everything else on all the other pages at the same time, even the notes! Unfortunately, I did not catch that issues before investing several more hours into it. One blanked-out page contains minor notes, the others did not have any, so the information I've added is all there. The missing pages are of lower importance anyway. This is just the free plans from JDfinley, which omits a lot of pages and several whole chapters as-is. It is unlikely that I'll do a completely new write-up, or even re-write all those notes onto a fresh doc. As that would represent a substantial amount of unneeded effort. The important notes are contained in the attachment above for future reference. (IMO, the page containing side consoles, seat back bulkhead, and seat bulkhead top portion are the most important. Followed by the fuselage sides and bottom layouts). The free plans on quickheads are best for a complete overview. And those available here for purchase, in conjunction with templates, are going to be a lot better for anyone who wants to build one of these from scratch. As for the pages for the LS1 canard, I deleted them early on, as it is unlikely a homebuilder is going to make their own tapered-tube carbon spar. I considered re-designing it with similar construction methods to the original. But the LS1 is not the appropriate solution to the GU canards issues, as a slotted flap creates its own safety concerns when used in this application. Once the CAD work is done, and everything fits correctly, some of those files will probably become available for use with this new crop of tabletop CNC routers. There really is no need for that level of precision, but it's cool. I think a nice 3-view, filled with dimensions and FS/BL/WL callouts, would greatly help other people. If and when I complete a flying example, it will have a new canard airfoil. And IF that works as intended, to resolve the known GU issues, those templates may also become available. The new airfoil is nearly identical. Though several changes to the leading-edge boundary layer development, transition ramp, and pressure recovery region are improved. The GU airfoil was not designed for a flap. Fixing it, while keeping the trailing edge, hinges, controls, and plans the same, took ...days. But I predict up to 5% better performance in many areas, no reduction in performance anywhere. And a LOT better lift/drag numbers at very low RN with large flap deflections. But most importantly, predicting an order of magnitude less variation in performance due to rain, bugs, and builder error.🙂

The single seat Quickie, the Q1 as it's known, was (under)powered by an industrial engine of 18hp, later 20hp. But it could top out at 126mph, or attain up to 105mpg at 75mph. Although, it's climb-rate was just 425fpm on a cold day if properly loaded. Many were too heavy, so several crashed after failing to climb over trees on hot, moderate density altitude days. Ideally, these need 22-25hp to reach 630-770fpm at 480lbs, just to be safe and usable. There are free plans available on the web, but they leave much to be desired. Like, missing most useful dimensions. Here is a link to some free online-hosted plans: http://www.quickheads.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=29&Itemid=122 As Jon Matcho mentioned, quickheads is also a great source for high-quality information. I have purchased his excellent template package, and found it includes enough information between those templates, and online hosted plans, to complete the airframe, less engine. Most people who are trying to build one of these little buggers, will benefit greatly from purchasing the full info-pack. Because it includes the templates for hot-wire cutting the foam wing cores, plus CAD files for CNC parts and weldments. It also includes the owners-manual with performance, weight and balance info. I personally recommend this; for the best info available, and a good deal with everything included, just splurge on the $99 package HERE: Again, the main issue preventing many people from completing or flying these, is a lack of engine options and installation instructions. But this fellow seems to have had good luck with a Kholer V-twin: My personal endeavor with the single-seat Quickie (Q1), is a complete and total reverse-engineering, with significant aerodynamic and structural analysis. I've modeled enough of the known-geometry to derive the unknown dimensions. Many of those that were given in the original plans are egregiously inaccurate! The QPC's issued, and also the (very good templates) I purchased from the above, simply DO NOT account for the incorrect seat-back bulkhead dimensions, which were provided by QAC to builders in the plans, but were never identified as incorrect. Looking at builders photos and videos, I see they made do with it. I've included an attachment of a VERY POOR quality, freely downloaded plan. Only because it includes many of my design notes, and missing dimensions derived from CAD. It serves as a quick-reference for ideas I've already explored, and should prove useful to future builders. Airfoils; while those Templates included in the above $99 package will certainly work for any future builders, I went ahead and gathered the original airfoil ordinate data from University of Glasgow and Dr. Richard Eppler's papers to work from. They are also available free from Airfoiltools website. I have re-constructed the design, and created an aerodynamic model in an attempt to determine Burt's stability and control derivatives. He knew what he was doing! E.g. Some items are less than desirable from a control standpoint (inboard ailerons), but they offer a significant improvement in preventing the rear wingtips from stalling. The overall concept and design philosophy is coherent. My (future) model will end up being re-designed, having found most of the the unknowns, the new version will have a few upgrades in certain areas; a new canard airfoil of which the front 70% is completely re-designed (By true inverse-design methods) for the Q1's specific flight conditions, build methods, and previously designed hardware and controls, limiting the amount of systems engineering effort required. While also improving in certain areas, like construction tolerances, rain trim, bugs, and may offer a moderately-increased gross weight. The other major area is a proper powerplant installation, with several common Aero-engine features. (And some new ones as well). Find attached, a few more items: Modified_Q1_Plans1.pdf