EAA Dopers: How 'bout a Quickie?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Dad was building a BD-5A back in the '70s. Pros: Fast (200 mph) and economical, traditional aluminum construction. Cons: Only one seat, can be a handful (read: “deadly”) to fly, limited engine choices.

I visited Burt Rutan’s shop in the '80s. I think the Long EZ is one of the coolest aircraft around. Pros: Two seats, certified aircraft engine, economical, fast (nearly 200 mph). Cons: Unknown.

The Quickie Q1 came out in the early-'80s, IIRC. Powered by an 18hp Onan engine, it was very cheap to fly. Its layout is positively science-fictional. Pros: Cheap and easy to build, economical, plans available for scratch-building. Cons: Only one seat, not particularly fast.

The Q1 was followed by the Q2. Pros: Two seats, proven VW powerplant. Cons: Well, there’s the Q200…

The Quickie Q200 is a Q2 with a certified O-200 engine. Pros: Fast (nearly 200 mph), aerodynamic modifications to make it safer in wet weather, certified aircraft engine, the best-looking aircraft of the bunch. Cons: Must be built from a kit (not plans), and the company went bankrupt in 1986.

I haven’t followed Experimental aircraft since the '80s; but from what I have seen, the industry has sorted itself out into: Fast, high-performance, expensive kits (Lancair, Glassair); and Slow, inexpensive “putters”. There are RV-6s and such out there, but my very limited observations show me that most of the kits are either too expensive or too slow.

I really like the Quickie Q200. It looks like something out of a science fiction movie. It’ll go 180 mph on 100hp. It seats two. Did I mention its SciFi looks? :smiley:

Here are some parameters I’m looking for:
[ul][li]Speed should approach 200mph (174 kts);[/li][li]Two seats;[/li][li]Quick built time;[/li][li]Inexpensive kit;[/li][li]Awesome appearance, preferably non-traditional layout;[/li][li]Still available a couple of years down the line (since I will have to be able to afford it, and to have a place to build it).[/ul][/li]Can you EAA Dopers, or Doper Pilots who follow Experimental aircraft, give me some ideas about a kit that meets those parameters? The Dragonfly is similar to the Q200, but not as pretty; and it’s slower.

Should I hope for a pre-owned Q200 kit being available in a couple of years? Should I hope I’m in a financial position that would allow me to buy a pre-owned, flying Q200? Or should I look for a more conventional design like the RV-6? Or should I find something else? Or should I save up for an old, slow, four-seat Cessna 172 (a fine aircraft, but slow!)?

Opinions, please!

2

The Pulsar fits most of your criteria, except for unconventional layout and inexpensive. The original pulsar (which the new company still markets) is a little smaller than the current model and was also much less expensive, based I believe on the single-place Star-Lite.

Same with the Europa in its monowheel configuration (fairly unconventional - kind of like the military’s U-2). Can also be converted to a motorglider! It isn’t inexpensive though - but I suspect that, in general, inexpensive and quick to build are mutually exclusive.

One I find interesting (but falls about 30 knots short of 174) is the Jabiru SP in a tailwheel configuration. Typical high-wing appearance, but very efficient and quiet. Stick is between the pilots, throttle is in front of your butt. It’s getting progressively more expensive with popularity (it’s based on a certified Australian design).

Just a couple ideas that popped into my head. Is it a safe guess that you’re not as wild about building a metal airplane? Vans makes the RV-9 which can take a smaller engine and still meet some of your requirements.

Of course, if you can do without inexpensive and quick to build, I’d suggest this. It will “approach” 200 mph - shortly after you raise the gear.

3

The problem with the Jabiru SP is that after building it I could have bought a C-172 for the same price. I wouldn’t have the STOL capabilities, but I’d have a certified four-seater that I could hire out.

The Europa and Pulsar look interesting, but the kit prices are high.

I’d love to have a Viper!

Maybe it’s changed over time, but this is how I see where Experimental aircraft fit into the scheme of things:
[ul][li]Much greater performance for the same price or a lower price than similar certified aircraft;[/li][li]Low-cost, low-performance aircraft so that pilots can afford to fly; but not necessarily get anywhere quickly;[/li][li]“Special mission” aircraft (e.g., very fast, very maneuverable, etc.) that are not available from Cessna, Beechcraft, Mooney, Piper, Maule, etc.[/ul][/li]Dad’s BD-5 kit cost about $2,000 in 1973. At the time, a Cessna 172 could be had for about $10,000. (Obviously, they’re completely different aircraft.) In exchange for spending 1,000 man-hours building the BD-5, you would get an aircraft that was faster and cheaper to operate than the Cessna. In the mid-1970s to the early-'80s, you could buy a Vari-eze or Long EZ kit (doncha love the way Rutan changed the suffix so that people would pronounce it correctly?) for about $3,400. (It’s been so long, that I don’t remember the kit price; but I think that’s close.) Again, for an estimated 1,000 hours of time you would have a faster, cheaper-to-operate aircraft than the available “spam cans”.

So for a while, a person could spend very little money and get an aircraft that had a lot of performance.

But then came the lawsuits that crushed the GA aircraft industry. Instead of 15,000 airplanes being built every year, suddenly there were only about 2,000 aircraft produced annually. Dad’s 1970 Cessna 172, which he bought for $10,200 unsing the insurance settlement after his BD-5 was destroyed in a moving accident, sold in the late-1980s for $19,000. The same aircraft, now 34 years old, would fetch over $30,000. His $19,000 1968 Cessna 182 would sell for $60,000 or more.

With very few new aircraft being built and with prices going up astronomically, homebuilts became ever more popular. Prices for high-performance kits jumped tenfold. It seems that these homebuilts were aimed at people with a lot of disposable income. The less-expensive kits were of lower performance, and seem to be aimed at people who “must leave this planet, if only for an hour”. A lot of them appear to be based on ultralights. Nothing wrong with ultralights; but I’d like a machine that’s useful.

At about $13,000, the Vans RV-4 is not too expensive in today’s money (although it’s still a bundle in my current underemployment situation), and it will do 200 mph on 150hp. The RV-9 ($17,400, or $25,400 for the quick-build) is impressive as well.

I think that aircraft like this are more in keeping with the “more for less” ideal.

Metal airplanes are fine. All-metal construction is proven technology. I have nothing against an all-metal airplane (I really like the BD-5), but I find the Q200 more attractive. I know that composite aircraft have proven they are durable; but I like the idea of being able to see things like wrinkles and cracks in aluminum. (Not that I’d like to see them! But I like the idea of seeing a potential failure ahead of time.) On the other hand, composites are stronger (I have a video I bought from Rutan back in the '80s that shows Burt Rutan and Mike Mellville stomping on mockups of aluminum and composite canards) and are easier to shape into aerodynamic complex curves. (Incidentally, I received a little training at Lockheed in fiberglass parts making back around 1981.)

When it comes down to it, I really want a Q200; but I’m open to other options.

4

To get the full spectrum from build-it-cheap-from-plans to barely-meets-the-51%-rule-but-ready-to-fly-in-a-year, you might check out aerocrafter. It’s a pretty thick book and worth the $15 for all sorts of construction info, stuff on experimental engines, airplanes, helicopters, gliders, kits and plans.

These days especially, I gather it’s a big trade-off between building an inexpensive plane and having an airworthy plane quickly. Lots of “builder assist” workshops that expedite the construction process and apparently still meet the letter of the 51% rule if you can spare the money.

Oh yeah, if you google around for dragonfly or quickie you’ll eventually find info about the fly-in that crowd holds in Kansas every year. Might be worth checking out . . .

Good luck! Let us know if you settle on something.

5

I didn’t see you mention insurability on your list anywhere. Might be something to think about.

Once you figure that in, the RV-4 starts looking better and better.

6

Have you seen a Quickie? They are SMALL. Not a very practical cross-country machine. And the tiny wheels on it precluded any sort of soft-field flying. The Quickie at our field never flew. I think I saw it fly maybe twice over the space of a couple of years. I considered a Quickie years ago, but after seeing one and studying it I gave it a pass.

For my money the best value in homebuilt aircraft is a Van’s RV. The kits are reasonably inexpensive, and they offer a tremendous all-around performance. They can get in and out of short fields, they are very easy to fly, they are reasonably sized and comfortable, and they fly fast and climb like a bat. I used to own a Grumman AA1, which has a very similar form factor as the RV-6A. But the RV will carry more, fly 30-40 mph faster on the same horsepower (an AA1 modded to 150 HP will cruise at about 140-150 mph. An RV-6 cruises at 187 on the same power). The RV also climbs about twice as fast and uses about half the runway.

They are built using standard aircraft construction techniques which any A&P will be familiar with. This can be very useful, and really helps resale. The whole structure inside and out can be inspected. Composite airplanes are more iffy in this regard, and more than one has failed in flight due to poor construction. I remember a Long-EZE that crashed after a goodly number of hours, and when they opened the wing they disovered that the spar had never been attached, and the wing was held on the whole time by the strength of the fiberglass skin and nothing else.

Anyway, there are thousands of RVs flying, so there is an established market for them. And it should make it easy for you to find one to look at and even fly if you’re thinking of building.

7

Have I seen one? Heh. I was a teenager in Lancaster, very close to Mojave! :smiley:

The original Quickie is indeed small. One seat, 18hp. But the Q200 is a two-seater and has an O-200 up front. Ever been in a Robinson R-22 with the doors on? The cockpit of a Q200 looks to be about the same size.

That’s a consideration. I like that composites are stronger than aluminum, but they’re not as easy to inspect.

Quicky went under in 1986, due to a lawsuit after one of their planes crashed. Not that I hold it against them; Cessna had similar problems, but deeper pockets. That makes it difficult to find a kit, though.

Berkut: A Berkut would be nice, but too expensive.

8

And damn near impossible to come by anymore. I wish I had the $$$ to buy all their molds and such. Suck.

Something else to think about… Completed homebuilts are going to have a requirement for a yearly condition inspection as part of their standard operating limitations. This inspection will have to be performed by either the holder of the repairman certificate for that particular aircraft, or an A&P. You may have a harder time finding someone that will inspect a Quickie over something like an RV. While you may work on the airplane yourself, there are limitations on who may perform the inspection. That’s a big plus for the

9

Rv. :slight_smile:

10

Johnny L.A. said:

Actually, the airplane on our field was either a Q2 or a Q200, not an original Quickie. The other limitation I didn’t like was the high landing speed and long runway requirements - common to canard aircraft. And even the Q2 and Q200 are very small airplanes.

If I can’t sell you on the RV, try watching Van’s “Total Performance” video. It’s amazing. It shows an RV-6 getting off the ground in a couple of hundred feet, slow-flying by so slow it looks like it’s hanging on its prop, then zooming by at ridiculous speeds. Then some aerobatics for good measure, followed by a short-field landing with an almost nonexistant rollout. Very impressive.

I flew a Glasair III years ago, and that thing was an absolute hoot. But also expensive as hell. It takes at least $150,000 to get a decent one into the air. But an RV can be flying for a third of that, and have a lot of the performance, and with fixed gear at that.

Here’s the big question: Are you thinking of a homebuilt because you love to build, or because you’re trying to save money? If the latter, a homebuilt is a mistake. If you aren’t doing it for the love of building you probably won’t finish the project, and if you do you won’t save money over a used aircraft. For example, you can get a Grumman AA1 with a 150HP engine for $20,000-$25,000. It’ll fly fast, climb well, and when you want to sell it you’ll probably get more for it than your purchase price. It’ll be cheaper to ensure, and might even be cheaper to maintain because there are ready aftermarket parts from scrapped planes and A&Ps are comfortable with them. My annuals used to cost $300-$600.

If you want a 4-seat plane, a Grumman Tiger can be had for $50,000, and it’ll cruise at 143 knots, fly 800 miles, and it’s cheap to maintain. And again, it’ll probably appreciate enough to pay for the time you run off the engine, and then some.

11

That all came across sounding a little too ‘lecturing’. Sorry about that. I used to get questions about homebuilts all the time from new student pilots (I used to teach ground school, and I was a member of the EAA), and that was my standard spiel. I’m sure you know this stuff as well as I do.

12

Neither. I like the idea of going 200 mph (or nearly so) on a small engine. I like the efficiency of homebuilts. Plus, they’re better looking than production aircraft.

Incidentally, my first five hours (when I was in jr. high) was in an AA-5. N5801L. I lost the log book before I started training in earnest, and I think the instructor is dead. No chance of “recovering” the hours; but then, it’s only five hours. Great little airplane. I liked the visibility and the sliding canopy.

My dad and a friend had a “fly off” once. His friend flew an AA-5 and my dad flew his C-172. The AA-5 was only a little bit faster (dad’s plane had a cruise prop on it) and the 172 had better short-field capabilities. (40° flaps, you know. :wink: )

Just got the AOPA Pilot. Interesting little two-seater in there. The pre-production model goes 130 kts on 125 hp.

If I do end up getting a homebuilt, I’ll probably get one that’s already flying. Yes, I’ll have to take it to an A&P for inspection, but I’ll be flying sooner. I have lots and lots of time to think about it.

13

I’ve been doing some early thinking about a new airplane too. I probably won’t buy one for a few years yet, but I’m currently agonizing over whether I should try to find an RV-6 used, or a used Grumman. Maybe a Traveler or a Cheetah - a Tiger might be slightly out of my price range.

I worry about used homebuilts still, and I think at this point, especially with the RV, it’s an irrational fear. But I can’t get over the thought that maybe there are some hidden flaws somewhere that are going to bite me one day. If I were to buy one, I think I’d want a super-thorough inspection from a good A&P. That’s a problem with composite planes. If I were going to buy a composite plane, though, it wouldn’t be a Q200. I think I’d look for a Long-EZE. Those things have compiled a very good safety record, there are quite a few around, and last I looked (a few years ago) they were reasonably priced except for the super-premium ones that go for 100K+. And they’re certainly efficient.

14

Yeah, the Long EZ is a nice aircraft. As I said, I looked into buying a kit years ago. The Long EZ is a little faster than the Q200, and IIRC the Vari-eze is faster still; but the Q200 is a lot prettier. On the other hand, if I were to get a Long EZ, I could tell non-pilots, “You know. The plane John Denver was killed in.” :smiley: (I can’t help it. I have a morbid sense of humour.)

If I had gobs of money, I’d like to contact Shouling Barnes to see if she’d want to sell me the bones of Pancho Barnes’s Mystery S. (Last time I talked to Shouling, about five years ago, she said the Mystery S was in a hangar, taken apart, and with no fabric.)

15

Or you could tell them your Long-EZE was designed by the guy who’s now building spaceships…

16

Someone I know built a ~200kt composit 2-seater (RK-2 or something like that)
He decided it is too much airplane for him. But he doesn’t want to seel it because of the liability issues (since he is the manufacturer). He will probably piece it out.
It is done except for the inspection (and flight tests-he’s done taxi tests)
Brian

17

Yes, the KR-2’s probably what you’re thinking - I can’t remember who makes it but I saw one in Wichita under construction. Interesting - largely composite but with a wooden wing spar. VERY narrow cockpit. Runs on a VW engine. I believe they have kits for these, but not sure if it is available in the “quick build” mode, more of a plans-type plane.

18

KR-2 is from Rand Robinson. Inexpensive kit, but not quick-build or unconventional.

19

Anyone hear about a homebuilt crash today? There was something about it on CNN Headline News this afternoon. They said “Seal Beach”, and the only “Seal Beach” I know is in California. It crashed into a house and burned. I tried to see what it was, but there wasn’t much left. I think I saw a vertical stabilizer; and if that’s what it was, it looked like a Long EZ.

Anyone have any more info?

On s side note: How do you bail out of a Long-EZ or a BD-5 in case of a structural failure? The pusher prop seems as if it would be a bit problematic.

20

In the case of the BD-5, you’d probably be spinning too fast to care…