Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > FLYING INFO AND STORIES > FIRST FLIGHTS & COMPLETIONS
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-11-2006, 02:51 PM
danstrom's Avatar
danstrom danstrom is offline
LongEZ wannabe since 1982
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 118
Default is it the plane or the driver?

I was poking around in the NTSB accident database and noted a peculiar theme among Quickie accidents. it goes like this:
* very low time pilot
* with zero time in type
* little or no recent (< 3 mo) flight time in any type
* who declines all offers of assistance from experienced pilots
* and crashes & is killed on first flight.

first off, what were these guys thinking? ("oh, it'll be fine, i'm a GREAT pilot" ?)
is there something about this plane that attracts people with a sense of invulnerability and overconfidence?

second, what, is this plane really quite a handful and shouldn't be flown by inexperienced pilots?

a similar search of Cozy accidents turns up no such theme, and aren't there similar numbers of both types extant?
__________________
When you sail on the Titanic, there's no point in going steerage.

73 total flight hours and counting -- now licensed to get myself into trouble, er, I mean, licensed to learn!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-11-2006, 07:14 PM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

I've seen a couple q-1's and a Q-2 flying for real. Also have seen some video of a Q-1 flying like crazy. I'd be tempted to get ahold of a Q-1 as an extra toy. All were very impressive. BUT, there are issues with the aircraft. Sounds like maybe you don't know about them yet. true? To answer your question, I'd say both the drivers and those aircraft.

Let me go ahead and detail the issues I can remember, in no particular order...

Landing gear:
> With the very wide stance, snagging a wheel on one side gives you a real YAHOO of a ground loop experience.
> IIRC, the Q-1's had brakes that weren't the smoothest. Given the very wide stance of the mains, they tended to have directional problems while on the ground when one brake worked differently than the other.
> The mains are very far forward of the CG and tended to give you potential for really wild porpoising bounces if you bounced it and there wasn't much you could do except plant the nose in the dirt.
That's why you see guys doing crazy and ugly things with landing gear on Dragonfly's.
> Before some fixes, they found that bugs, dirt, and water on the canard had a big effect on it's ability to generate lift and keep the nose up.
> Cargo space, adequate to hold a cat in the Q-1. Maybe a family of racoons in the 2 seat versions.
What else??
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-11-2006, 07:54 PM
JonC's Avatar
JonC JonC is offline
LEz - N555LE Q - N555QA
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnt
IIRC, the Q-1's had brakes that weren't the smoothest. Given the very wide stance of the mains, they tended to have directional problems while on the ground when one brake worked differently than the other.
Two words... Cable Brakes.
__________________
~Nathan
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.