Mini Q

[Wayne]

Guess what rolled into the shop!!

The new and improved Mini Q are here. What is improved? We now have a heavy layup over the spar and leave the material for the owner to trim to their needs. For Slope pilots, probably no trimming needed. For electrics, you can trim out enough for battery clearances.

 

[Brainstorm]

That’s excellent news, Wayne!

Any pictures of the new Orange color scheme?

 

[Jose5x5]

Also interested in what the Orange scheme looks like

 

[Wayne]

Here is a quick photo:

 

[Jose5x5]

Here is a quick photo:
View attachment 3848

Ordering mine now

 

[Wayne]

Sold out again.. That was fast. Should have more in a few weeks.

 

[Konrad]

Just got in my Mini Q, well worth the wait and added cost. The over fuselage web is a huge improvement! I'd still like to see a straight fiber reinforcement. But as it is now, flexing the wing does flex the wings. The original production run the fuselage would flex and or the bulkhead would pop. The thick balsa shear webs (spar?) also have fiberglass shear webs on each side (front and back). Love that there are heavy carbon load spreaders in the top skin for the servo mounting. Still see a quality issue with the contour of the canopy not matching the contour of the fuselage. Also as to the trimming of the components both the in process and discreet components is a bit poor for this price point. Nothing that a "real" modeler can't take care of. Overall fit and finish is a strong 7 out of a possible 10. The controls are still top hinged (to lower the drag with the reflex the control surfaces should be bottom hinged).

I will be using KST X0-8 servos and IDS mounts in the wings, driving the surfaces from the top. I'm aiming to set up mine as a 3 channel ship (variable CG).

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Konrad]

LOL
Mine was USED! Used in the photo in post #281. As you can see there are a few minor issues.

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Konrad]

Hit my first snag. I was hoping to use the Power HD LF-20MG as the servo to control the shifting mass. Even use it as the shifting mass (60g). As you can see I might be able to fit the servo body in the nose if I disregard the output and arm.

So it is looking like I can't use the $17 LF-20MG. The next large geared servo I have is the PowerHD B7, this will fit. But it is a lot more than $17 and a lot less weight only 47 grams.

I'd like to learn what you guys are using as far as nose weight to balance the Mini Q.

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Konrad]

Wow, Am I asking too much for some basic QC/QA from our friends in China? I know the Chinese can do a great job at this. Just look at the quality products coming out of China under the brand names of Apple and Boeing for example. Why can't we see the same quality programs attached to our toys from China?

Is it really too much to ask for some basic IQ, OQ and PQ (Installation Qualification, Operation Qualification and Performance Qualification)?

Here I see that the extended center fuselage web interferes with the canopy hold down system. Did anybody do a "form, fit and function" test of the new improvements?


All the best,
Konrad

 

[purview]

Is it really too much to ask for some basic IQ, OQ and PQ (Installation Qualification, Operation Qualification and Performance Qualification)?

keep your feet on the ground konrad? what is so expensive there!

... but harsh comments if you recognize the size of the plane and maybe production numbers

 

[Konrad]

Sorry, Again you lost me.

What does cost have to do here? This is just a poor upgrade (engineering oversight). The previous production run did allow for clearance of the canopy hold downs. That little bit of glass added across in the new “upgrade” appears to have added 23% to the cost and now doesn’t allow the canopy to seat properly.

As to value, with the price increase it looks like the TJIRC mini Q is starting to drop right in line with products from RCRCM. Meaning that the model needs a lot of work. As TJIRC looks to be a new firm I’d like to try to instill the need for proper QA/QC protocols. If the firm doesn’t get feedback from the customer why would they bother to put any effort into improving the quality of the product.

I’m here to post what I find in my purchase. Again this it to bring to light the short coming of the product. It is hoped that this might help the customer deal with the product and at the same time let the OEM know that there are opportunities for massive improvements. For the record TJIRC have made an improvement with the added fuselage webbing. This would be an improvement in durability,the PQ side of the quality program. But they failed on the OQ side of things as the canopy hold down doesn’t operate correctly.

Other than were I just said that the TJIRC products look to be in line with RCRCM, where have I made harsh statements about the product or even the firm TJIRC. They are a new firm and I’m sure going through some growing pains. It is up to us the customer to give them guidance as to where to put resources to develop products we would want to purchase. I don’t want TJIRC to become another RCRCM!

I don’t see where small ships should have lower quality standards than larger ships. As to production numbers I’m sure if the rate is low that a few seconds added to the trimming of the parts won’t effect the total daily output. If production numbers are high, then this would justify more attention to the fit of the molds. And justify adding some more engineering time to getting the product manufactured correctly the first time.

Now I need to be careful to separate my preferences from quality issues. Like I think the model needs to have the control surfaces bottom hinged. I know that from an esthetics perspective most would want the control horns and rods sticking out the bottom. But from a performance and durability perspective we want the control rods coming out the top.

To be clear even at $160 I think the mini Q is a good value. But just think how much better the product would be if there was some attention given to a QC/QA program!

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Wayne]

Konrad - Cool your jets a bit. You are coming off pretty strong.

Your complaints are about things I asked them specifically to do. TJI has been great to work with and have done everything I have asked.

I requested they make the flange moulding strong enough to support the wings and to do a rough cut removing the minimal amount of the flange to allow the canopy to be slid on. This allows the customers to trim the opening to whatever they like. So I personally am very pleased with this. It was my goal. Electric folks will need to do a lot of trimming and glider folks will probably just clean it up a bit. Honestly I was picturing much smaller holes, but they discovered the pins needed a fair bit of clearance.

If you ask me, job VERY well done.

As for price - Nothing comes close. I see foam selling for more and doing a lot less. These planes should last many years and still be flying and looking good. The performance is strong and the looks are good and the price is very fair.

In the moulded airframe world, there is little actual difference in the costs when it comes to size. An airframe with a 3M span has very similar labor and material costs as a similar plane with a 2M span. So why do we see price differences? Because people simply will not pay that much for a smaller plane. (And there is also a savings in the shipping costs. Those add up fast!) Many european manufacturers no longer offer small airframes. If they do, they typically retail for $700 or more. I for one am extremely happy to have a manufacturer producing very nice small moulded ships for us.

For example, I want TJI to make a glider fuselage for the Knief:

It feels like a slope ship to me. Guess what, $220 for these little guys! That is great. Total sweetheart with a need for speed. Really carries her energy well.

 

[Konrad]

Coming off strong! I ask that things work nothing more.
(Anybody that wants my money needs to work for it).

I stated that the reinforced web is a step in the right direction ( I think that was a request by you). But somebody dropped the ball in that implementation of this web has resulted in the canopy as manufactured doesn't fit.

My hat is off to TJIRC for responding to your request. But I think they should have done a basic IQ, OQ testing as to what the modification might have impacted. This should have been easy to find as I think most 3D/2D CAD/CAM programs can perform a fit function even before material is cut. This isn't just an issue with TJIRC, as many hobby houses don't seem to use or know how to use the power of CAD.

I need to take a photo of this, but I'd like to point out that TJIRC has added some fiber across the fuselage part line. This would have been omitted if the mini Q was manufactured by say RCRCM.

Guys, In my posts you will get what I see as both the good and the bad in a product.

Now to be fair the canopy pin fit will be easy enough to fix. But much of that added web will be lost, negating much (not all) of the modifications improvement.

So yes, I'm not here to help with sales, rather to drive for better products and I hope a better customer experience.
And like I said even at $160 the mini Q is a great value.

So really what is the issue? That I don't love poor engineering and manufacturing practices, guilty as charged!

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Hank GB Z]

Konrad,


Is a better solution to modify the canopy? Cut the stick in two so that it has a space that mimics the carry though material? Since the spar and the material between the wings is far more critical than the canopy, i'd start removing material from the canopy first.


Hank

 

[Konrad]

I don't want anybody to think that TJIRC doesn't know what they are doing. The canopy has always had the break in the hold down pin.

My concern is that the modification of the center of the fuselage was not properly investigated. Yes the web was sorely needed as we have seen many times with the failure of the bulkhead. Wayne was correct in asking for reinforcement of the fuselage.

As I hope you can see that most of this reinforcement will be lost just to get the canopy to fit.

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Wayne]

Ok - I hate to ask this, but what do you suggest as a solution?

And to be clear, your complaint here is the canopy stay? (and you would like to see the hinges flipped and the airfoil changed.)

In general I am not a huge fan of this style of canopy stay. They scratch up the paint every time you pull them off or on. Magnets always fail, fancy push lock things are expensive and kind of a pain. I guess this is why I tend to have tape on many of my gliders.

Please keep in mind the intent of this plane. A FUN GLIDER FOR VERY LITTLE MONEY!

 

[purview]

a company that can implement the feedback of bussines-partners as well as customer reviews alloverthe world should sustain on the market. Reputation is another issue.
so every weak spot has the initial to make something good or bad out of it, do nt be so lousy lazy low budget fun (lllbf principle)
I always trap into ?

on the otherside, I've nothing against to level up quality standards (who pays?)

 

[Konrad]

Ok, lets level set expectation. I am not cost driven but rather quality driven. I hold to the notion that one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

For example take a look at my efforts with the RCRM junk that is the Strega build I've post here on this forum. No mater how much I work to improve the product it really is a fools errand as at the heart of every component the Strega is poorly thought out and manufactured.

Now If I was to design this I would have had a carry through spar (structure) from the very beginning. Time and time again you and I have seen where the wings will crush the fuselage.


P.S.
No, My concern is that the carry through structure (new web) is not properly executed. I had given a detailed account in how to do this without needing to recut the molds as I assume the mold design is frozen (too expensive to retool).

 

[Konrad]

I'm pissed. The site has lost 3/4 of my response! It locked up!

Am I the only one that gets a lot of errors when signed in under my account name! It seems that there is a 90 second timer associated with every action when I'm signed in. But if I enter as a guest the site responds rather quickly.

What gives!