SQ2000 builders

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

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 . com...
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

(Marc A. Lefebvre US-775) wrote in message . com...
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

Note that only the three factory planes show airworthiness.

JJF

Paul Lee wrote:
(Marc A. Lefebvre US-775) wrote in message . com...

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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