SQ2000 builders

[Marc A. Lefebvre US-775]

Hello All...

Wondering how many SQ2000 builders are out there right now? I have
found two of you on the web (Joel and Paul), but, wondered if there
were any others out there. Any more websites showing a build in
progress.

I am considering building this plane out of a list of (SQ2000, Cozy,
AeroCanard, and Velocity).

Some of the basic reasons I am attracted to this design over others
is:
1) Build time is less
2) Sportier looking
3) Better performance
4) Kit available to accellerate building (but am not opposed to
scratch building)

But, some of the hesitations I have is:
1) Company has had some difficulties previously
2) Not too many builders (that I can find)
3) Not sure how many are flying (ie the safety records are
unestablished)
4) Based on the web page accounts of the build it seems that there are
alot of gaps in the directions that need to be filled in with
enginuity.

What are your thoughts out there on this design, the kit, and the
company in general? How is this design superior to the Cozy or
Velocity type designs? What are its flaws comparatively?

Marc

[Paul Lee]

Marc,

Guess you already seen my SQ2000 website. I am nearly finished - just
painting
to go. Looks like about 2100 hours - considerably more than factory
suggested
1200 hours. But that is probably due to my several changes: Yoke
system, seat
system, different engine (I completely rebuilt the engine from
scratch)
total electronic ignition, electric fuel pumps, full IFR, different
cabin cooling / vent system, changing the NG to roller bearing, etc.
If you strictly stick to the factory design with minimal changes, it
will take a lot less time.

My impression is that the SQ2000 is in many ways similar to a Cozy MK
IV or long EZ except for the fuselage design which I think is superior
in interior space and streamline. The fact that it shares many
parts/features with those two aircraft makes it easier to get parts or
assistance as per first post in this thread.

So far, during the 2 1/2 years of my build I did not lack any
assistance from
KLS composites when needed. And they promissed to give me 5 hours
flight training - which I will do soon.

For faster build, Stan at KLS is happy to offer you Builder Assistance
at the factory - additional cost of course.

I have heard reports that the standard Cozy NG that SQ2000 uses has a
better track record than Velocity.

There were some other builders progress illustrated on the old KLS
website, But they redesigned their website and the webmaster left and
they
don't know how to do it themselves. They even asked me for web help
but I don't have the time.

I plan to leave my construction website on, for benefit of other
builders.

If you drive by SD here, you are welcome to drop and look - had a guy
from
Texas here.

-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

(Marc A. Lefebvre US-775) wrote in message >...
> Hello All...
>
> Wondering how many SQ2000 builders are out there right now? I have
> found two of you on the web (Joel and Paul), but, wondered if there
> were any others out there. Any more websites showing a build in
> progress.
>
> I am considering building this plane out of a list of (SQ2000, Cozy,
> AeroCanard, and Velocity).
>
> Some of the basic reasons I am attracted to this design over others
> is:
> 1) Build time is less
> 2) Sportier looking
> 3) Better performance
> 4) Kit available to accellerate building (but am not opposed to
> scratch building)
>
> But, some of the hesitations I have is:
> 1) Company has had some difficulties previously
> 2) Not too many builders (that I can find)
> 3) Not sure how many are flying (ie the safety records are
> unestablished)
> 4) Based on the web page accounts of the build it seems that there are
> alot of gaps in the directions that need to be filled in with
> enginuity.
>
> What are your thoughts out there on this design, the kit, and the
> company in general? How is this design superior to the Cozy or
> Velocity type designs? What are its flaws comparatively?
>
> Marc

[Paul Lee]

(Marc A. Lefebvre US-775) wrote in message >...
> 3) Not sure how many are flying (ie the safety records are
> unestablished)

Marc,

According to FAA Registry Make / Model Inquiry Results:

There are seven SQ2000 registered (including mine) and at least
three have airworthiness - the first one since 1997.

You can easily do a search on model at http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

[Foster]

Note that only the three factory planes show airworthiness.

JJF

Paul Lee wrote:
> (Marc A. Lefebvre US-775) wrote in message >...
>
>>3) Not sure how many are flying (ie the safety records are
>>unestablished)
>
>
> Marc,
>
> According to FAA Registry Make / Model Inquiry Results:
>
> There are seven SQ2000 registered (including mine) and at least
> three have airworthiness - the first one since 1997.
>
> You can easily do a search on model at http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:35:50 -0600, Foster > wrote:
>> Marc,
>>
>> According to FAA Registry Make / Model Inquiry Results:
>>
>> There are seven SQ2000 registered (including mine) and at least
>> three have airworthiness - the first one since 1997.
>
>Note that only the three factory planes show airworthiness.

Note that the "airworthiness" code on the registrations refers only to the
status of paperwork. Plenty of long-time flying homebuilts show a blank
here.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ernesto Sanchez]

I plan to share some of my SQ2000 construction photos on my web site very
soon. Look on the left frame under the aviation tab:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0391z/index.html

Thanks,
Ernesto

[Paul Lee]

Ron,

I didn't know that you are or were building a SQ2000.

BTW those 3 planes are flying - never mind the paperwork word
play.

Ernesto,

Yes. Get bussy and publish some more SQ2000 photos.
More info helps dispel imagination.

---------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 project: www.abri.com/sq2000

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:35:50 -0600, Foster > wrote:
> >> Marc,
> >>
> >> According to FAA Registry Make / Model Inquiry Results:
> >>
> >> There are seven SQ2000 registered (including mine) and at least
> >> three have airworthiness - the first one since 1997.
> >
> >Note that only the three factory planes show airworthiness.
>
> Note that the "airworthiness" code on the registrations refers only to the
> status of paperwork. Plenty of long-time flying homebuilts show a blank
> here.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 20 Dec 2003 16:02:20 -0800, (Paul Lee) wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:35:50 -0600, Foster > wrote:
>> >> Marc,
>> >>
>> >> According to FAA Registry Make / Model Inquiry Results:
>> >>
>> >> There are seven SQ2000 registered (including mine) and at least
>> >> three have airworthiness - the first one since 1997.
>> >
>> >Note that only the three factory planes show airworthiness.
>>
>> Note that the "airworthiness" code on the registrations refers only to the
>> status of paperwork. Plenty of long-time flying homebuilts show a blank
>> here.
>
>Ron,
>
>I didn't know that you are or were building a SQ2000.

Uhhhh...no, not me. If I implied that somehow, sorry.

>BTW those 3 planes are flying - never mind the paperwork word
>play.

I talked to some of the database folks at OK city about this about five
years ago. Generally, the "airworthiness" field is supposed to be left
blank if the aircraft hasn't received an airworthiness certificate yet. My
suspicion is that it used to be used to mark reserved N-Numbers; nowadays
that have an actual status block that covers this and other arcana

Anyway, the registration was supposed to be updated when the plane flew,
but there are a lot of planes where this didn't happen (Ammeter's, for
one). There were also planes that received an airworthiness code
before...in some cases WELL before...the plane flew. There was a plane
that crashed on its first flight about two years ago that shows a valid
airworthiness code on my 1997 copy of the FAA database.

The EAA and FAA only count as homebuilts those planes that have a "42" for
an airworthiness code..."4" being the prefix for Experimental category, and
"2" being for amateur-built. However, there are a LOT of planes with blank
airworthiness codes that have "homebuilt-like" names...IIRC, I found about
12,000 in my 1997 database (vs. about 20,000 planes with the "42" code).

For example, my January 2003 database shows 1585 RV-6s. However, almost a
quarter of them haven't got an entry under Airworthiness. When the EAA and
FAA counts homebuilts, they DON'T include these ~350 RV-6s...or the ~200
RV-4s, or ~270 Kitfoxes, etc, that also have a blank under the
airworthiness code.

Some are flying, but I'm suspecting many are left-over N-Number
reservations that haven't yet been freed up. I suspect the FAA triennial
registration process (which has been a topic on r.a.piloting) is related to
freeing up a bunch of unused numbers.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ben Sego]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

<snip>
> The EAA and FAA only count as homebuilts those planes that have a "42" for
> an airworthiness code..."4" being the prefix for Experimental category, and
> "2" being for amateur-built.

<snip>

Ron Wanttaja

Well, if you want to believe that explanation for the use of the number
42, that's fine. Deep thought leads to a different answer.

B.S.

[Paul Lee]

Ron,

Looks like you are way ahead of me on all that FAA stuff.

I just kind of took the records to be accurate.
But I pretty well know that at least three SQ2000 are flying - saw some
of them at Sun-N-Fun. They were ones that were involved in KLS Composites
financial recovery. Guess they really liked the design. Hope I'll add
the 4th one to the squadron soon.

Paul.

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On 20 Dec 2003 16:02:20 -0800, (Paul Lee) wrote:
>

> The EAA and FAA only count as homebuilts those planes that have a "42" for
> an airworthiness code..."4" being the prefix for Experimental category, and
> "2" being for amateur-built. However, there are a LOT of planes with blank
> airworthiness codes that have "homebuilt-like" names...IIRC, I found about
> 12,000 in my 1997 database (vs. about 20,000 planes with the "42" code).
> .......................
> Ron Wanttaja

[Paul Lee]

I'd like to invite any/all SQ2000 builders/fliers to give me their
names and/or websites of their project/results and I'll list it on my
website. For whatever reason, KLS composites is not good at maintining
up to date website info themselves. Their current website is their
second attempt at hiring somebody else and did not do a complete job.

Better info exchange will have better results.
My email address is on my website.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:07:39 GMT, Ben Sego > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
><snip>
>> The EAA and FAA only count as homebuilts those planes that have a "42" for
>> an airworthiness code..."4" being the prefix for Experimental category, and
>> "2" being for amateur-built.
>
>Well, if you want to believe that explanation for the use of the number
>42, that's fine. Deep thought leads to a different answer.

No, Ben, 42 *is* the answer. We need deep thought to come up with the
question.

Ron "Mostly Harmless" Wanttaja

[Holger Stephan]

Paul Lee wrote:

> I'd like to invite any/all SQ2000 builders/fliers to give me their
> names and/or websites of their project/results and I'll list it on my
> website. For whatever reason, KLS composites is not good at maintining
> up to date website info themselves. Their current website is their
> second attempt at hiring somebody else and did not do a complete job.
>
> Better info exchange will have better results.
> My email address is on my website.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

Do it, Paul! Keeping the builder of a particular design connected through a
mailing list and a web site is one of the most efficient ways to distribute
safety relevant information. If there is no such thing for the SQ2000 start
it and hand it off when you're more busy flying than building.

Oh and good luck for your first flight!

- Holger

[Marc A. Lefebvre US-775]

I have also made a request at the CanardZone.com forum (ex Cozy Forum)
to add a SQ2000 section. I am hoping more builders, flyers, and
interested parties can congregate somewhere and post info, ideas, and
other stuff about this design. I am not yet a builder but hope to be
one soon. My main problem is finding an adequate place to start a
build. Please add me to your mailing list on this bird. :)

Marc

Holger Stephan > wrote in message >...
> Paul Lee wrote:
>
> > I'd like to invite any/all SQ2000 builders/fliers to give me their
> > names and/or websites of their project/results and I'll list it on my
> > website. For whatever reason, KLS composites is not good at maintining
> > up to date website info themselves. Their current website is their
> > second attempt at hiring somebody else and did not do a complete job.
> >
> > Better info exchange will have better results.
> > My email address is on my website.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: http://www.abri.com/sq2000
>
> Do it, Paul! Keeping the builder of a particular design connected through a
> mailing list and a web site is one of the most efficient ways to distribute
> safety relevant information. If there is no such thing for the SQ2000 start
> it and hand it off when you're more busy flying than building.
>
> Oh and good luck for your first flight!
>
> - Holger

[Paul Lee]

Marc,

As soon as you start your project, why not make a building website
with progress photos? Websites can be very simple, cheap and digital
cameras are easy to use. Its the best way to share your progress with
others. I'll list your website as soon as you let me know.

Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

(Marc A. Lefebvre US-775) wrote in message >...
> I have also made a request at the CanardZone.com forum (ex Cozy Forum)
> to add a SQ2000 section. I am hoping more builders, flyers, and
> interested parties can congregate somewhere and post info, ideas, and
> other stuff about this design. I am not yet a builder but hope to be
> one soon. My main problem is finding an adequate place to start a
> build. Please add me to your mailing list on this bird. :)
>
> Marc
>

[George A. Graham]

On 21 Dec 2003, Marc A. Lefebvre US-775 wrote:

My main problem is finding an adequate place to start a
> build.

Marc,
I built my canard pieces in a 9 X 12' spare bedroom. That is
the fuselage tub, canopy, turtledeck, canard, wings, spar, landing
gear etc. The strakes had to wait until we could use the garage
(summer in buffalo NY).

It was nice, the heat could be controlled, didn't have to drive
to work on it. I capped off the furnace intake to keep the wife
happy (no extensive sanding indoors either).



George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage <http://bfn.org/~ca266>