New Quickie 100 micro pylon racer

Hello Fred,

Thank you for your tip…will do that.

I was assuming that at this construction quality and price level it would have been pretty obvious engines are not included as a TD 0.20 sells from 90 to 170 USD depending on condition… so if I included an engine the actual model would be practically a giveaway.

If one chooses to use a basic reed valve 0.49 overall cost to equip the model lowers considerably, as my initial concept was to produce a club micro pylon racer i have also accurately predrilled/taped the firewall for the standard reed valve 0.49 tank mount/back plate so it’s just bolt and play.

Tasos.

Hi Tasos..it may sound a bizarre thought, but the pattern of mounting holes on the TeeDee020 tank happens to match the hole pattern of the TeeDee049 radial mount backplate sold by Greg Kamis..I know an 049 TeeDee would overpower the Quickie but I am afraid I won't be able to resist trying this combo...of course after proper adjustment of the CG for the heavier engine and some muffling to tame it..and providing the firewall is strong enough for such an engine upgrade...what do you think? .

1/2A Nut wrote:......
By taking that approach the wings may not fold if you use quality low weight servos. You must
modernize your choice in the flight pack something low weight. Keep the tank to 1 oz to save weight.
There is certainly enough squares on the wing to land nice.

Thanks Brad, do you mean the wings would fold in an abrupt loop or dive, given the higher speed with TD049 than with the originally designed 020, or, 0149 reedy? Or, simply because of the extra weight by the TD049? I remember Tasos added carbon reinforcements into the foam wing.

Andras....I bet a strong AERO Norvel .049 at 32K+ RPM would NOT harm that wing construction...especially if covered with a quality film...

.049 AERO Novels were short snout plain bearing combat bladder engines capable of over 30K RPM ...I have some left to get rid of....lighter than a few cox bees or TeeDees

Thanks Fred, no doubt about it..In a similar example, I am powering my Lil Roughneck designed for a TeeDee 020, with my home assembled Killer Bee.

I also have a 061 Norvel that I could put in the nose of my 1/2A size planes,  but you know my COX obsession...I disregard all presumed handicaps of the TD049 (higher fuel consumption, heavier weight per output than the NV etc that I as an engineer would otherwise appreciate )because I am an irreparable COX maniac.

Andras I well know you personal and nostalgic affinity for Cox engines and your angst with a junk Norvel motor...I used the example for two reasons..1; tweak your bias...grin...2; it is a low cost "light weight" power house compared to a stels, cyclone, or Fora combat .049...each much heavier and not really suited for these RC pylon racers being discussed....OTOH....a screaming STELS on this bird would be wicked fun....and i suspect 1/2Anut or Aspeed will buy one and significantly over engine it...I Can't wait for the flight videos

Yes I am sure some of us will try and even shoot videos..mine is already in prep for shipment. I will add a red postage stamp reedy with a No 1 cylinder and turbo head first..then I will see if I swap a TeeDee049 with radial mount.

Thanks Brad good advice! When I build the plane myself I also use carbon elements in the leading edge and main spars because I saw planes of others with wings buckling under extreme loads..luckily my planes so far all avoided that...some died out of other reasons.. I believe the Quickie was built to strength and will conveniently follow a TeeDee049 in its nose with no sweat. With the TeeDee radial mount there will be a very wide choice of engines to try ranging from the TeeDee020 through a tanked Bee or Black Widow and 049 postage stamp reedy on Goldberg mount and finally the Teedee 049..51..I hope Tasos will not get offended at our plans of abuse with a TeeDee049?

My apologies gents...my announcement yesterday evening, made based on a superficial, visual comparison of the mounting hole patterns of the TeeDee020 mounting screws and that of the radial mount of the TeeDee049 was incorrect.

In fact, using a caliper, I found now that the mounting holes on the TeeDee020 tank rim are farther apart than the radial mount holes for the 049 TeeDee...therefore, the TeeDee049 cannot be added to the Quickie motor choice. Of course it will not reduce the exceptional value of the Quickie at all, because the plane was not primarily intended for a TeeDee049.

My bad...

Brad, below is my choice of APC-s. Going for the speed, which one would you select for a 049 reedy? As discovered regretfully above, the TeeDee049 radial mount does not match that of the motor mounting holes on the TeeDee020 so I will stick to a 049 reedy).

Thank you very much Brad, I will bench test the postage stamp reedy as you advised. I hope the plane will arrive soon too.

Hello,

Have been rather busy this week as I had several packages to prepare and ship including Andras Quickie which is already on its way to Hungary… I attach some photos of the way I package the Quickies… also a couple with more reed valve 0.49 engine versions.

My initial concept behind this vintage model was to power with the stock TD 0.20 and also strong reed valve 0.49 types as the Black Widow based on the logical assumption that the number of pilots owing 0.49 engines far exceeds owners of expensive TD 0.20s… I modified the original basic structure and chose materials to result a very high strength to weight ratio but I was never aiming to produce an all-out speedster but rather a user friendly club type exciting racer.

Main target of balanced structure was to result a relatively low wing loading combined with drag reducing mods (as much as possible to keep the basic design character)…paramount issue was user friendly handling/performance in tight turning even when banked 90degrees where wing loading sky rockets and high speed tip stall is imminent.  

Despite this I have high confidence in the wing bending and torsional strength for several reasons:
- The particular XPS foam used has a much higher compression strength compared to ordinary XPS types.
- Yes carbon reinforcement is more of a C-tube as it is not enclosed by a top/bottom spar and I opted to use lightweight veil (instead of high epoxy consumption heavy cloth), BUT specific veil is R&G product applied with L20/EPH 161 aircraft grade epoxy and no weak points along the surface exist, leading edge is substantial medium hard stock that contributes to resisting bending forces.
- Wings are joined by using slow curing epoxy and 25gr glass cloth center reinforcement is generous to exceed fuse width by 5mm, also wing tips are very lightweight but substantial 6mm stock that along with trailing edge stringer forms a closed boxed structure much contributing to torsional strength.
The end result is a wing that highly resists bending and twisting forces even without further finishing… yet feels as light as feather.

The rest of structure has also high strength… now do I advise the use of a 0.49/51 TD?
It depends on what TD one uses as there is a wide range of power output/versions over the basic stock engine… If one wishes to use the strongest engine on my models I would not shy away from it but advise the following mods:
- Glass the entire length of TE and ailerons using 25gr glass… 40mm width is enough… doing the entire exposed foam surface is even better.
- Glass the last TE portion/tips of the stab and whole of elevator as a minimum… entire stab is better.
- Glass the fin TE and tip as a minimum… entire fin is better.
- Firewall is strong enough as is with epoxy fillets on the inside fuse junctions and is 3/16 Ceiba ply that I specifically used over multi-lamination birch ply of thinner section as is has higher vibration absorbing qualities… if one insists he could glass it with 25gr cloth extended by 10mm on the nose area.

Use of at least 12gr high quality BB servos with thick carbon or metal gears and making sure to have absolutely zero slop/no flex in all control connections.

The main issue involved is preventing high speed flutter and NOT a structural in flight failure I assure you! Most of the times structure failures during high speed flight can be induced by an almost unnoticeable very brief high frequency flutter that loses glue joints and/or rips apart control connections in a matter of micro seconds… then rest/ whole structure fails abruptly with wing/stab/fin the weakest/longest parts… stiffness and zero slop is the only cure.

Measuring input power limits in Watts is very logical but we must also take in to account engine vibration…a smooth 120 Watt electric motor is not the same as a screaming/throbbing highly tuned TD 0.51 that despite careful crankshaft /prop rebalancing still exerts high frequency vibrations to entire structure and equipment...

So we must look at the increased power issue as a combined system of the specific power plant used and the overall ability of the structure to absorb that power transform it successfully to speed or vertical climb/aerobatics etc.

No Andras I am not at all offended with all that talk of input power upgrade… on the contrary I very much enjoy it!
Tasos.
     

Thanks Tasos. I am looking forward to completing the Quickie. As written to you I bench tested my very first 049 a red postage backplate engine that I got in 1974 off a Stuka a German classmate of mine zeroed.

The beast spun a 4.5x3.5 APC with Nelson plug and 20% nitro at 21k. I will make videos.

Thanks Brad. The Killer Bee backplate unfortunately does not fully match the mounting hole pattern here. Anyway I will use this prop on my Lil Roughneck that has the Killer Bee on it.