Talk:Rutan Quickie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rutan Quickie article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Merger 2 Quickie or Q2 ? 3 Canard Vs. Tandem Wing 4 Canard is stabilizing ? 5 Engine choices

[edit] Merger

From User talk:Ericg and User talk:Keenan Pepper:

These are two different articles, and should remain as such. What you've proposed is the equivalent of merging Cessna with Cessna 172. Quickie Aircraft was the manufacturer which built Rutan Quickie kits. Please consider reverting your own edit. ericg ✈ 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't revert my own edit, that's ridiculous. You should say why you disagree on the article talk page.

Articles don't have to have exactly the same topic to be merged. The question is not whether they are exactly the same thing or related but different things, the question is whether they could be better presented as one article or two. Just look at their first sentences. If Quickie Aircraft ever made any aircraft other than the Quickie, you should edit the article to reflect that. —Keenan Pepper 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I disagree. Merging the two articles won't necessarily create a better presentation. Presenting manufacturer and product on the same page will mess with the categories, as well as create some level of confusion. While the level of pop culture recognition is certainly different, do you propose merging De Lorean Motor Company with De Lorean DMC-12 just because it was the only car ever produced? The Quickie was one of the first truly popular composite homebuilt aircraft, and both articles could be expanded. It's only a matter of time. ericg ✈ 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good example; I never knew that about the De Lorean. I see your point. —Keenan Pepper 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

yes there should be a different artical bettween the producer and the product, even though there is only one product of the company. a quickie spin off was created in the early 90's i think by a company called "Eagle Aircraft" i think they're bassed in Perth Australia, but i am not %100 sure about atm i can find quite a bit of information on it should you be interested, they actualy have made quite a few side by side, aircraft that look REALY funny including a tadem wing aircraft that also has a traditional tail.

[edit] Quickie or Q2 ?

These are different airplanes. Quickie (model 54) is a pure Rutan design, single seat. Q2 is a different airplane, two seater, not a Rutan alone design. Quickie Aircraft is another item. In this article, title and photo are not telling the same plane... Two articles would be better. Plxdesi january 08

[edit] Canard Vs. Tandem Wing

Two questions from a newbie : why is a tandem wing different to a biplane? It's not explained anywhere I can find. Can the forward wing of a tandem wing be a canard? I thought the definition of a canard winglet was 'does not provide lift'. Thanks in advance for any answers. David.j.james 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point, as neither the biplane nor the tandem wing articles mention the why, they just say they aren't the same. So, I'll look into doing some editing. In the meantime, the difference is that in a biplane, the lift from both wings is located roughly in the same place fore-and-aft, in relation to the center of gravity. (There are a few exceptions, like the Beech Staggerwing, but even there, the center of lift is still relatively close.) The point of a tandem wing is that you spread the center of lift of each wing farther apart, thereby greatly extending the CG envelope, making the plane much more stable and, theoretically, safer. That has always been Burt's goal, safer aircraft. And yes, sometimes the forward wing of a tandem wing plane can be considered a canard (aeronautics), although, strictly speaking, a canard functions in the same role as a horizontal stabilizer, to stabilize the pitching moment around the CG. Hope this helps. Akradecki 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canard is stabilizing ?

Sure, definitely no. In any lifting configuration (wing and aft tail, or tandem, or canard), the front wing is destabilizing, the aft one is stabilizing. Canard elevators are on the front wing, yes, but considering a canard as a stabilizer is an aerodynamic nonsense. To cope with pitch stability, any aircraft needs to input an heavier wing loading on the front wing. Canard wing loading is about 1.5 to 2 times more than the wing. Plxdesi january 08

[edit] Engine choices

Hi: For reasons best left unexplained, I was part of a project to salvage pieces of an unflyable Quickie (I don't have the N-number handy). The registration plate said the engine was 18hp, and I understand it was from an Onan 2-cylinder engine. The craft was reported able to use 1 gallon per hour at 100 mph air speed. I have heard the canard was designed to stall before the rear lifting surface, essentially making the craft unstallable although the design of the canard airfoil made it almost useless if had any water on it.

65.40.225.13 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)dlneiman