Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:55 AM - grass strip operations? (deuskid)
2. 05:23 AM - N31BZ back at SYI (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
3. 05:35 AM - Re: grass strip operations? (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
4. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Givan, Max)
5. 01:24 PM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Pete)
6. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Brian Whittingham)
7. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
8. 09:31 PM - Re: Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions (N1BZRich@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | grass strip operations? |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" <empire.john@gmail.com>
I know the lightning isn't a bush plane but can it operate off a typical grass
strip used by other GA aircraft?
Thanks,
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56036#56036
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | N31BZ back at SYI |
Hello Lightning and Esqual list (Duane, AE, Kevin, plus ??)
I fought my way through lots of rain while dodging "thunder-bumpers"
yesterday and am now back in SYI. The actual conditions were much worse than
had been forecast or I would have waited a day or so. But 31BZ performed
great and even with 20 plus knots on the nose, I made it in four hours - total
fuel burn was 22.2 gallons. Block to block speed was about 140 (hate those
headwinds) and fuel burn averaged about 5.5 gallons per hour. Actually the
average speed was likely more than 140 since I had to constantly maneuver /
change course to avoid thunder storms, etc.
The purpose of the trip is to get the new auto pilot installed and some
minor paint touch up, but I want to offer rides to Duane (who starts building
this week), AE, Kevin and any others that are seriously interested in the
Lightning. Remember, 31BZ is not a Lightning, but has many Lightning mods, so
it is kind of a second hybrid Lightning. If you are a current pilot you will
get the left seat. I will be probably be here until the weekend. Give the
guys at SYI a call if you are interested.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: grass strip operations? |
John, Buz here,
Certainly the Lightning can be used on grass strips. The main gear
wheel tires are 500x5 (Same as I changed my Esqual to) and I have had my airplane
into several grass strips. Don't know if Nick has had the prototype into a
grass strip yet, but they often took the hybrid into grass strips for
fly-ins, etc. One thing to mention is that the Lightning take off roll will be
much
shorter than most other GA aircraft, so getting out will be no problem at
all. Recently I was at a fly-in at a grass strip in Virginia that was attended
by many of my Cub friends. Guess which airplane had the shortest take off
roll when we departed?
Someone recently asked about luggage space. As I recall the Lightning
is good for 50 pounds. The luggage floor can be installed quite a bit below
the back of the seats giving lots of room for two people's baggage. I camped
at OSH for two weeks and had all camping gear and cloths in my airplane's
baggage area. No, I did not take golf clubs. When you sit in the airplane, the
shoulder harness are higher and baggage should be under them. Remember,
without the emergency chute, there is much more room back there.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
Buz and All
I have been considering a Lightning, however one of the 'issues' that I
have with this aircraft is that it's early versions are not very
'stable'.
Your comments that:
'a stable cross country platform is probably some boring store bought C
or P airframe. Sport aircraft will never be as stable as those - and
generally no one that flys sport aircraft wants them to be'
is certainly not true for me. I would intend to use 'my' Lightning for
extensive cross country with light IFR and for those purposes you really
need a reasonable level of basic stability in all 3 axes. This is a
pilot workload and safety of flight issue. Can near neutrally stable
aircraft be flown by competent pilots? Yes, albeit with much higher
workload. I dont want C or P stability levels, however, there are basic,
well established flying qualities criteria from sources such as
MIL-F-8785C. Just good basic aircraft design principles. I am
experienced pilot and also an Aerospace engineer
(Flight Control and configuration design) with many years designing
military aircraft so I have some solid basis for my opinions. Again, I
think the Lightning is a very interesting design but from information I
have read and heard on actual flight characteristics, I believe it needs
some attention to the basic stability and control issues before I would
write a check for one. Yes, I know about the recent aft fuselage mods to
get CG foward, however I believe it may need another iteration to
improve stability and real world flying qualities. For the local VFR,
psuedo fighter pilot flying crowd, the current configuration might be
just fine. I am following current builders progress and flight testing.
I will probably end up buy one but I want more info on basic flying
qualities first.
Max Givan
________________________________
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening
Hey Jack, Buz here.
This list is a great thing for sharing information with others when
you have something informative to share. But my thoughts after reading
some of your message were - he must have flown a really different Esqual
than the ones I have flown and the engines must not have been installed
correctly for good cooling. The heating issue you mention is totally
an airframe installation situation - not an engine issue. So bottom
line, I actually thought Pete went kind of easy with his response. My
opinion.
Here are some other statements you made that I thought were
misleading or hard to understand what you were really saying:
-You said: On a cross country platform it is my opinion that the
Lightning will not be as stable or as fast as the RV.
Since I am pretty sure you have not flown a Lightning, how did you form
this opinion? Actually, a stable cross country platform is probably
some boring store bought C or P airframe. Sport aircraft will never be
as stable as those - and generally no one that flys sport aircraft wants
them to be. Will the Lightning be as fast on XC? That will depend on
which Lightning and which RV-9A. Differences of opinions is what makes
horse races. Heck, I have a friend building an RV-9A (has been doing so
for many years) and I can't wait to blow by him in my Esqual.
-You said: Balanced control surfaces on the RV were great, the Esqual
and I suspect the Lightning not as good.
I am confused by what you mean by balanced control surfaces. The
Lightning has aerodynamic and statically balanced rudder and elevator -
the Esqual does not. Are you maybe talking about control feel, or stick
force per "G" perhaps, or rate of change of aircraft displacement based
on some specific control input verses airspeed? Not sure what you are
saying.
-You said: Stability for cross country was better in the RV than the
Esqual
See above about sport aircraft and cross country , but my Esqual is a
great cross country airplane. There is some required trim adjustment as
you burn fuel, but you can easily trim it hands off. As long as you are
above the bumpy air down low, it is as smooth a ride as my Bonanza was.
-You mentioned the term: well harmonized control input.
Once again I am confused. I completely understand "harmonized controls"
referring to control feel, but if we are talking "input" than that must
be something that comes from the pilot. If the pilot does not have at
least good hands (mine are golden) then the input may not be well
harmonized. Yes, I'm joshing with you here.
In closing, I hope you can understand why Pete was so concerned.
There is just too much of the "old wives tales" type of information and
"hangar talk" based on hearsay in aviation. We need to keep the
information flow going, but it must be based on facts and not hearsay.
Well, I'm ready to jink-out if you are tracking and I am in your
pipper, so take any shots. Seriously, the fact that you took the time
to send your message shows that you care and some of your information
was good. I would just caution you about opinions without facts.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
Max,
It sounds like you really want a Cessna. The Lightning and many other
sporty aircraft like Vans RV's, kit Lancair's, Glasair's, Esquals and others
are not "hands off" aircraft. They must be flown most of the time. But -
that's part of the fun that we like to have in the aircraft. It sounds like
the Lightning is not the aircraft for your goals. We can make it more
"Cessna like" but that is not what meets our goals for the aircraft.
Responsive handling for fun coupled with enough cross country stability that
does not tire a pilot out after 3 or 4 hours is what we have. As you said,
the Lightning is early in its development but we feel we are really close to
the goals we were aiming at.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Givan, Max
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening
Buz and All
I have been considering a Lightning, however one of the 'issues' that I have
with this aircraft is that it's early versions are not very 'stable'.
Your comments that:
'a stable cross country platform is probably some boring store bought C or P
airframe. Sport aircraft will never be as stable as those - and generally
no one that flys sport aircraft wants them to be'
is certainly not true for me. I would intend to use 'my' Lightning for
extensive cross country with light IFR and for those purposes you really
need a reasonable level of basic stability in all 3 axes. This is a pilot
workload and safety of flight issue. Can near neutrally stable aircraft be
flown by competent pilots? Yes, albeit with much higher workload. I dont
want C or P stability levels, however, there are basic, well established
flying qualities criteria from sources such as MIL-F-8785C. Just good basic
aircraft design principles. I am experienced pilot and also an Aerospace
engineer
(Flight Control and configuration design) with many years designing military
aircraft so I have some solid basis for my opinions. Again, I think the
Lightning is a very interesting design but from information I have read and
heard on actual flight characteristics, I believe it needs some attention to
the basic stability and control issues before I would write a check for one.
Yes, I know about the recent aft fuselage mods to get CG foward, however I
believe it may need another iteration to improve stability and real world
flying qualities. For the local VFR, psuedo fighter pilot flying crowd, the
current configuration might be just fine. I am following current builders
progress and flight testing. I will probably end up buy one but I want more
info on basic flying qualities first.
Max Givan
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening
Hey Jack, Buz here.
This list is a great thing for sharing information with others when you
have something informative to share. But my thoughts after reading some of
your message were - he must have flown a really different Esqual than the
ones I have flown and the engines must not have been installed correctly for
good cooling. The heating issue you mention is totally an airframe
installation situation - not an engine issue. So bottom line, I actually
thought Pete went kind of easy with his response. My opinion.
Here are some other statements you made that I thought were misleading
or hard to understand what you were really saying:
-You said: On a cross country platform it is my opinion that the Lightning
will not be as stable or as fast as the RV.
Since I am pretty sure you have not flown a Lightning, how did you form this
opinion? Actually, a stable cross country platform is probably some boring
store bought C or P airframe. Sport aircraft will never be as stable as
those - and generally no one that flys sport aircraft wants them to be.
Will the Lightning be as fast on XC? That will depend on which Lightning
and which RV-9A. Differences of opinions is what makes horse races. Heck,
I have a friend building an RV-9A (has been doing so for many years) and I
can't wait to blow by him in my Esqual.
-You said: Balanced control surfaces on the RV were great, the Esqual and I
suspect the Lightning not as good.
I am confused by what you mean by balanced control surfaces. The Lightning
has aerodynamic and statically balanced rudder and elevator - the Esqual
does not. Are you maybe talking about control feel, or stick force per "G"
perhaps, or rate of change of aircraft displacement based on some specific
control input verses airspeed? Not sure what you are saying.
-You said: Stability for cross country was better in the RV than the Esqual
See above about sport aircraft and cross country , but my Esqual is a great
cross country airplane. There is some required trim adjustment as you burn
fuel, but you can easily trim it hands off. As long as you are above the
bumpy air down low, it is as smooth a ride as my Bonanza was.
-You mentioned the term: well harmonized control input.
Once again I am confused. I completely understand "harmonized controls"
referring to control feel, but if we are talking "input" than that must be
something that comes from the pilot. If the pilot does not have at least
good hands (mine are golden) then the input may not be well harmonized.
Yes, I'm joshing with you here.
In closing, I hope you can understand why Pete was so concerned. There
is just too much of the "old wives tales" type of information and "hangar
talk" based on hearsay in aviation. We need to keep the information flow
going, but it must be based on facts and not hearsay.
Well, I'm ready to jink-out if you are tracking and I am in your pipper,
so take any shots. Seriously, the fact that you took the time to send your
message shows that you care and some of your information was good. I would
just caution you about opinions without facts.
Blue Skies,
Buz
ronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Brian Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
Max,
Let me jump in here since I have experience with the planes. The
Lightning is only what I would call close to neutrally stable in the roll
axis. You seem to be basing your comments on something that you picked up
on that Buzz said. Hopefully he'll jump on and clarify this a little. I'd
also caution you to make a statement like that without flying the aircraft
as there's no real basis for comparison.
'a stable cross country platform is probably some boring store bought C or P
airframe. Sport aircraft will never be as stable as those - and generally
no one that flys sport aircraft wants them to be'
If you have never flown a light sport aircraft then you won't know what he's
talking about here. You aren't going to make a light sport aircraft be able
to handle turbulence as well as a heavier airplane. You also aren't going
to get a low wing light sport to handle turbulence quiet as well as a high
wing. The second part of that I think he was really talking more about
manueverability than stability or controlability. What makes part of it fun
is a rapid and responsive roll rate. I believe that I also hold the current
highest trip length in a Lightning. I have flown over 1600nm with the plane
in one shot. I couldn't take my hands off for a few minutes and drink a cup
of tea or whatever, but It flew nice and stable. There were no pressures
needed to be excerted on the stick, just a handhold on the stick. During
this trip I flew over the tops of building clouds and over the tops of the
Rockies and the plane handled turbulence surprisingly well.
I would personally say that this plane has at least as good if not better
stability and controlability as the Esqual. I think that it has superior
manueverability (faster roll rates, better climb rates). I also like the
feel of the plane much better. There's more of a solid control feel but not
a heavy feel on the controls. This is one of those planes that you can
really "feel" out the plane and it becomes an extension of your body. If
you want hands off flying cross country (and don't want a Cessna) that is
fast, efficient, at a great price, and looks great then one of these could
be for you. Just include the dual axis autopilot like Buzz is putting in
his Esqual. (I don't know about you but I try not to ever really fly hands
off even with the autopilot on)
I don't know if you got a chance to read my partial pilot report that I
posted earlier and it got erased. If you didn't I'll post it again. Brian
W.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
Hi Max,
I am afraid we may be talking semantics here. My first thought is that
some how we both need to know what the other means by the word "stable". My
other thought is just how important is the others definition of stable if we
are happy with the cross country capability of what ever airplane we are
flying, and... I have never flown an airplane that I didn't like. (I just
re-read that and I am not too sure you will get my meaning, but heck it is late
and
I had a long day, so I hope you understand).
I will start off by saying that the Lightning and the Esqual are both
good cross country airplanes. Heck, I have 175 hours on mine in the last 8
months and probably at least half of that is cross country. Also, in the past
(or currently), I have owned a Cessna 170, a Beech Debonair, a Beech
Bonanza, a Piper J3 Cub, and a single seat Pitts. I have flown them all on lots
of
XCs and only the Debonair had an auto pilot. The Bonanza had one, but it was
so old that I took it out. Trim them up and you can look at a map or what
ever while continuing to hand fly the airplanes. Of the above, the least
stable of course was the Pitts, but it was pure fun to fly - even on long XCs.
The longest of which was from California to Virginia - and lots of other
shorter trips through out the southwest when I was competing in aerobatic
contest. The airplane that I have the most time in (something like 4000 hours)
is
the F-4 (C, D, E, slated E, F). Is it stable? Well, I guess it depends on
the definition of stable. Obviously I have flown lots of cross country in
those as well (mostly IFR where you need to be pretty accurate with your altitude
and heading. Did I use the F-4 auto pilot. Almost never. Heck, even the
Dash 1 had a warning note: Do not engage below 5000 feet. That is how much
they (and I) trusted the auto pilot in the F-4. Well, that and the fact that
most of what we did was in formation.
Max, the point of all of this is that some airplanes that some people
might consider "not stable for cross country" are flown cross country every day
by others that love them and with no trouble. Kind of like "different
strokes for different folks". When you evaluate an airplane and share your
thoughts with others, you run the risk that someone will not fully understand
what
you are trying to say. Perhaps this has happened here. I don't know where
you live, but I would invite you to take a flight in my Esqual. I have
probably had 30 or so pilots fly it up to this point. If they are current I put
them in the left seat. Most initially over controlled in pitch, but after
"calibrating" their hands they had no problems. That is my Esqual. The
Lightning is a better airplane in every respect.
In closing, here are a few things to consider:
First, don't read some message that talks about some airplane and believe
what is written it if that person has not flown that airplane. And so far,
everyone that has flown a Lightning has loved it. Sure, the list of Lightning
pilots is only five people long, but that list will quickly grow.
Second, it sounds like we may have some common back ground as far a military
aviation and aerospace engineering. I see by your e-mail address that you
must work at Northrop Grumman.
Third, come fly my Esqual - I am serious - or be sure to fly the Lightning
demonstrator as soon as they get one built.
Fourth, read my message to Jack again after you have seen the above.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions |
Hi Dan, Buz here,
I will take a quick stab at your questions.
1.) Does the floor of the baggage area drop significantly below the level
of the tops of the seatbacks? Yes, indeed. I need to measure it for you, but
I would guess it could be built about 18 inches below the seat backs. The
prototype does not have a baggage floor. Earl has not installed his yet. I
did not get to see Greg's completed baggage area. Tomorrow I will measure
mine. It is basically the same as the Lightning.
2.) Is lugguge supposed to sit on top of, or beneath, the shoulder
harnesses as they pass backward to their mounting points? Baggage should be below
the harnesses, and it will be as the harnesses are higher when you have them
on. Your shoulders are higher than the seat backs.
3.) How do you keep luggage from decapitating you in the case of a
rapid-decceleration such as might occur with an off-field emergent landing? Is
there
provision for mounting a strong, easy-to-remove, aesthetically-pleasing
barrier/strap/netting that could be installed (side-to-side or top to bottom)
between the pilot's head and the luggage compartment?
Pack the heaviest things on the bottom. A "cargo net" kind of arrangement
should be easy. Remember you are the builder and this is your airplane. Make
it like you want it, but that does sound like a great idea.
4.) I assume the BRS effectively eliminates at least half of the luggage
space?
Well, probably not half of it, but quite a bit. I really don't know how
much the BRS weighs.
5.) If Van's tricycle-geared two-seaters (RV-6A, RV-7A, RV-8A, RV-9A) have
any weakness, it is probaby the fragility of the nose-gear setup. Granted
the 3300 Jab would weight alot less than an O-320, but the Lightning's
nose-gear looks very similar to the RV's nose-gear. Is it the same? The nose
gear
is similar, but not the same. And remember the Lightning weight is much less.
You mentioned the Zodiac XL. The EAA chapter in Williamsburg, VA is
building two of them. Now the nose gear on that looks like a potential week spot
to me.
6.) The Lightning has a nice, slow landing speed. How well would it
operate on grass strips? What size are the wheels? The mains have 500x5 tires.
Same as on my Pitts. No problem with grass operations.
7.) How is headroom in the Lightning? I am 6'1" with a long torso & long
neck. Would the headroom be confining? I am 6'2", but have a normal neck.
Is your tactical call sigh Giraffe?
I think you will fit just fine.
8.) Can the Lightning be painted (without fear of melting in the sun) in
red, orange, or yellow on the TOP half of the fuselage? Most "glass" airplanes
I have seen are lighter colors - mostly white on top because of the concern
for heat build up. I suppose if you keep it hangared except when it was
flying you could use a color on top. Boats and Corvettes seem to get by with
that. Bottom line - I don't know.
9.) Finally, the craziest question: Would hard points be available on the
Lightning to attach floats? Wow, Dan, you are really thinking and dreaming -
but than that is what experimental aircraft are about, so go for it - you
are the builder. The Lightning factory guys are probably too busy to get
involved with that effort. Talk to some of the float makers and ask them that
question or have them evaluate your Lightning kit. Perhaps another suggestion
is to buy a second airplane that is already a float plane or amphibious.
Blue Skies,
Buz
PS: Is there an Air Force base named after you?
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|