Info on Dragonfly and Quickie

'bd...@relay.micron.net

unread,

Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97

to

I'm looking for advice and information on the Viking Dragonfly and Quickie
designs. I like the appearance of these aircraft and the speed vs. economics
aspect. However, I'm a little leery of canards and composite structures. I'm
well aware that with properly designed canard aircraft the canard will stall
or lose sufficient lift to keep the aft wing flying.

1) Time to build
2) Cost for completion assuming basic VFR equipment - no electronics
3) Is there any baggage/cargo capacity?
4) Could ski equipment - including skis be carried in it?
5) Fuel capacity? Is the tank in the fuselage?
6) The Dragonfly appears to be based on a Volkswagen powerplant.
Can a Rotax or Continental be substituted?
7) How is the ground handling - taxi, landing and crosswind capabilities?
7a) Gusty wind response?
7b) What would the maximum crosswind capability be that you recommend?
8) How do they ride/control in turbulence light to moderate turbulence?
9) What are the design load factors?
10) Do you have confidence that if a bird - say a goose or duck were to impact
a wing that structural integrity would be maintained to allow safe landing
11) Can these designs be equipped with a ballistic chute?
12) Would it be easy to exit the cockpit with a parachute if the occasion
arose?
13) If these designs were to enter a spin - even if they are designed against
it - is normal spin recovery possible if c.g. is within range?
14) What is a good range horsepower - not excessive, but not underpowered?
15) Given the landing gear setup with the canard being an integral part of
the main gear - would landing on dirt,grass or unimproved strips be unadvised?

There's a lot of questions aren't there?! Whatever input you can give me I
appreciate it and you certainly don't have to answer all questions to respond.
If e-mailing remove the ' '2 from bdp. I'm still getting spam from a month
ago. Thanks again.

Bret

Mahan

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

to

Bret, point your browser to:

http://www.si-inc.com/dragonfly/

and

http://www1.minn.net/~amc-msp/q-page.html

and talk to the experts. They also have news lists that you can
subscribe to in order to ask questions.

Fred in Florida

Brian Hawthorne

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

'bdp'2...@relay.micron.net wrote:

I have the same interest and questions on these a/c. could you please
post what you find out. I only have usenet privelages here at work,
and can't go to www anything. One thing, the quickee has folding
wings and dragonfly doesn't.

Brian Hawthorne bha...@nortel.com

Std, disclaimerI don't speak for my employer.

QDurham

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

>One thing, the quickee has folding
>wings and dragonfly doesn't.
>
>

Since when?

Wilson

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

In article <19970911192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, qdu...@aol.com
says...

>
>>One thing, the quickee has folding
>>wings and dragonfly doesn't.
>>
>>
>
>Since when?

Yeah!

One has removable wings, the other has a removable tailcone. I forget which is
which.

The Dragonfly also has a lot more wing.

Brian Hawthorne

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

to

Ok, I was wrong, please elaborate and explain it to me.

Is it the Q2 that is similar but with folding wings, or
am I wrong again?

Thanks for your help,
Brian Hawthorne, bhawthatnortel.com
^^

QDurham

unread,

Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97

to

>Ok, I was wrong, please elaborate and explain it to me.
>
>Is it the Q2 that is similar but with folding wings, or
>am I wrong again?

None of the Qs (deliberatelly) fold their wings, and I don't think the DFs
do either. In either case, with canard and main about the same size, what
would be the point?

Quent

N329DF

unread,

Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97

to

>One thing, the quickee has folding
>>>wings and dragonfly doesn

>Since when?

>
>Yeah!
>
>One has removable wings, the other has a removable tailcone. I forget which
>is
>which.
>
>The Dragonfly also has a lot more wing.

The Dragonfly has removable wings and the Quickee has the removable
tailcone, however when the wings are removed from the Dfly,. you also
remove the landing gear, so it can not be moved easily. Unless it is a
Tri-Gear, but there are only about half a dozen of them,
the wing span on the Dfly is about 22ft ea. and they are being flown with
VW's from 1835-2180cc, Continental C-65 - 90, O-200, Subaru's, ect.

you can learn more about the Dfly and Quickee at the follow web sites:
http://www.si-inc.com/dragonfly/
http://www1.minn.net/~amc-msp/q-page.html
you can also contact Spud Spornitz who puts out the Dragonfly Builders
and Fliers newsletter. Spud can be reached at DBFN...@AOL.COM

you can also see my Tri-Gear Dragonfly at:
http://members.aol.com/N329DF/index.html

Matt Gunsch
Dragonfly Tri-Gear

QDurham

unread,

Sep 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/14/97

to

Unmentioned so far is the fact that both are nifty planes.

Quent