Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:48 PM - Nice trip to Green Landings (pequeajim)
2. 05:04 PM - Aerobatics? (pequeajim)
3. 06:00 PM - Re: Aerobatics? (Brian Whittingham)
4. 06:24 PM - Re: Lightning-List (Charles Dewey)
5. 07:06 PM - Lightning Pilot Report ~ Brian Whittingham (Brian Whittingham)
6. 07:42 PM - Thinner center console (pequeajim)
7. 07:45 PM - Re: Comments (Charles Dewey)
8. 07:53 PM - Re: Thinner center console (Brian Whittingham)
9. 08:01 PM - Re: Thinner center console (pequeajim)
10. 08:05 PM - Re: Comments (Brian Whittingham)
11. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: Thinner center console (Brian Whittingham)
12. 08:43 PM - Re: Wheel pants (Charles Dewey)
13. 08:59 PM - Re: Wheel pants (Brian Whittingham)
14. 09:28 PM - Re: Re: Thinner center console (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
15. 10:52 PM - Re: Dynamic (Laurie Hoffman)
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: | Nice trip to Green Landings |
I took a 2 hour drive down to Green Landings this morning. IT was quite an interesting
and educational trip. Thanks to Ryan for showing me around. They have
quite a place with a well equipped shop for assembling your aircraft.
I was able to see the aircraft in various stages of completion, as shipped, partially
finished and completed. Nice...
I'm down to two aircraft, the Lightning and Dynamic WT9.
The sale of my Murphy Rebel and a little more reserch and I will be able to order
one of them.
The main thing I like about the Lightning is that I can build it as an Experimental.
Time will tell...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89170#89170
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 |
|
Has anyone tested the Lightning doing some level of aerobatics?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89176#89176
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 |
|
Did you get any pics of the Green Landings Lightnings?
While the WT-9 and the Lightning look a little bit similar I think that the
Lightning is the better looking of the two planes - opinion. The Lightning
is the better performer as per the stats on each - fact. The baggage room
for the Lightning is larger than the WT-9 has - fact. The Rotax engine is a
good engine in its own right, but if you haven't flown behind the Jabiru 6
cylinder you're missing out. It is cheap to operate, fairly high TBO, and
the smoothest running engine. Also if you don't run straight pipes it is a
quiet engine. I have no idea on the cost of the WT-9, but I do know the
cost of the Lightning and for what you get it's a steal! I also haven't
flown the WT-9, but I have got about 20 hours in the Lightning and quiet a
bit of it being cross-country time. Out of about 30 different kinds of
airplanes that I have flown the Lightning is one of my favorites if not my
favorite airplane. (two others are the Cirrus SR-22, although the ride
seemed rougher than the Lightning and price is definately much higher. Also
love the old twin Beech Travel Air) It really depends on what you're after.
For me I love a sporty plane where I feel like I'm in a corvette, but I
also like a comfortable flying/riding plane. For me the controls for the
Lightning are superior! You only get this kind of a feel in airplanes with
pushrods. I love being able to feel the airplane through the stick and not
through my butt. What I mean by that is that the controls give a minute
feedback that may be unperceivable in the ride. This kind of melds the
pilot and aircraft, and honestly makes a person look like a better pilot
than they are in my opinion. The airplane's stability is a great tradeoff
between stable cross-country flyer and a fun airplane. It's an easy plane
to fly where you can make nice shallow coordinated turns and keep a constant
altitude on cross-country flights, but if you want to go up on a pretty
Sunday afternoon and want to add "extra stick" you can really roll this one.
The first time that I saw the plane it was a hollow fuselage and a pair of
wings stacked in a corner. No engine, no canopy, but the Lightning logo on
the tail. It already had me interested, but seeing the plane progress and
the constant improving and experimenting before the first kits sold told me
it'd be a good flying plane. I constantly asked Nick what the performance
specs were up to as the flight test program progressed. The original
guestimate data was met in every performance regime, which is impressive
enough, but if I'm not mistaken it was exceeded in every regime. I was
somewhat sceptical that they could do what is now published, but I can now
tell you from experience it will. This one is a hoot to fly. I know that
Buz can back me up on that one!
This airplane has been rolled many times. It is certified to 5g's which is
what the Citabria that I learned aerobatics in was. Don't know if it's been
looped or not.
One last note is that from time to time I do work with the company, but I am
not on the payroll and do not work for them. I do have a biased opinion in
that I love that plane and I really do love that Jabiru six, but think that
my flight review is unbiased and a fair assessment. I'll try to post that
again if I can find it. Thanks, Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
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: Lightning-List |
I can attest to the character and quality that Ryan
Gross and his team at Green Landings produces. I
without a doubt would recommend them to anyone looking
to build a Lightning or any other plane for that
matter.
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
>
>
> Did you get any pics of the Green Landings
> Lightnings?
>
> While the WT-9 and the Lightning look a little bit
> similar I think that the
> Lightning is the better looking of the two planes -
> opinion. The Lightning
> is the better performer as per the stats on each -
> fact. The baggage room
> for the Lightning is larger than the WT-9 has -
> fact. The Rotax engine is a
> good engine in its own right, but if you haven't
> flown behind the Jabiru 6
> cylinder you're missing out. It is cheap to
> operate, fairly high TBO, and
> the smoothest running engine. Also if you don't run
> straight pipes it is a
> quiet engine. I have no idea on the cost of the
> WT-9, but I do know the
> cost of the Lightning and for what you get it's a
> steal! I also haven't
> flown the WT-9, but I have got about 20 hours in the
> Lightning and quiet a
> bit of it being cross-country time. Out of about 30
> different kinds of
> airplanes that I have flown the Lightning is one of
> my favorites if not my
> favorite airplane. (two others are the Cirrus
> SR-22, although the ride
> seemed rougher than the Lightning and price is
> definately much higher. Also
> love the old twin Beech Travel Air) It really
> depends on what you're after.
> For me I love a sporty plane where I feel like I'm
> in a corvette, but I
> also like a comfortable flying/riding plane. For me
> the controls for the
> Lightning are superior! You only get this kind of a
> feel in airplanes with
> pushrods. I love being able to feel the airplane
> through the stick and not
> through my butt. What I mean by that is that the
> controls give a minute
> feedback that may be unperceivable in the ride.
> This kind of melds the
> pilot and aircraft, and honestly makes a person look
> like a better pilot
> than they are in my opinion. The airplane's
> stability is a great tradeoff
> between stable cross-country flyer and a fun
> airplane. It's an easy plane
> to fly where you can make nice shallow coordinated
> turns and keep a constant
> altitude on cross-country flights, but if you want
> to go up on a pretty
> Sunday afternoon and want to add "extra stick" you
> can really roll this one.
>
> The first time that I saw the plane it was a hollow
> fuselage and a pair of
> wings stacked in a corner. No engine, no canopy,
> but the Lightning logo on
> the tail. It already had me interested, but seeing
> the plane progress and
> the constant improving and experimenting before the
> first kits sold told me
> it'd be a good flying plane. I constantly asked
> Nick what the performance
> specs were up to as the flight test program
> progressed. The original
> guestimate data was met in every performance regime,
> which is impressive
> enough, but if I'm not mistaken it was exceeded in
> every regime. I was
> somewhat sceptical that they could do what is now
> published, but I can now
> tell you from experience it will. This one is a
> hoot to fly. I know that
> Buz can back me up on that one!
>
> This airplane has been rolled many times. It is
> certified to 5g's which is
> what the Citabria that I learned aerobatics in was.
> Don't know if it's been
> looped or not.
>
> One last note is that from time to time I do work
> with the company, but I am
> not on the payroll and do not work for them. I do
> have a biased opinion in
> that I love that plane and I really do love that
> Jabiru six, but think that
> my flight review is unbiased and a fair assessment.
> I'll try to post that
> again if I can find it. Thanks, Brian W.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Type your favorite song. Get a customized station.
> Try MSN Radio powered
> by Pandora.
> http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
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: | Lightning Pilot Report ~ Brian Whittingham |
I'll repost this pilot report for those of you who may have joined recently
or didn't catch it before. Those pilots who have flown the Lightning have
reported very similar things as in here. Let me once again say that
although I have worked with the Arion company from time to time I do not
work for them. You won't find me on the payroll. Right now I'm trying to
tune in a little more speed by doing some minor airframe cleanup which I
hope to offer as a "speed kit" if the results are favorable. I believe my
current work will yield about another 8mph. My ultimate goal would be to
try to get the high altitude cruise speed up to 200mph, but I believe that
will take some more doing past the current mods that I have planned. I am a
pilot who has on ocassion flown the time off of experimental aircraft or
delivered them at the request of the owner/builders. I have flown about 30
different types of aircraft at this point. I am 25 years old and have been
flying since I was 12. I don't, however, come from an aviation family. In
fact none of my family are pilots except for me. My current experiments
with the Lightning I believe was hatched from sitting in the hangar and
talking with Buz and Nick about some airframe cleanup. I got Pete and Nick
to give me authorization to fly the prototype on these flights. I am also
using this as my topic for a thesis and while I hope for favorable results,
I must at all costs remain objective. Partly these experiments are to help
me understand the relationships of different drag reduction techniques on
this aircraft, and partly to see what kind of enhancements in terms of
performance, but mainly in terms of efficiency that it can achieve. I tell
you all this to show that I am trying to be objective but also that I am for
lack of a better term, a "Lightning Enthusiast." No reason other than I've
flown it and am seriously impressed by the handling, performance, and
efficiency. Now on with the PIREP:
I've got several hours in the Lightning now. Hopefully this won't bore all
of you and I'll try not to be too technical. Let me start with a little
history on the Lightning. The Lightning was developed around the same lines
as the Esqual, a light, fast, fun, and affordable sport plane. The
Lightning however is a totally new design that exceeds the quality and
performance of the Esqual in every way! The Vol Medici company that
marketed the Esqual sold off the company and (so far) stop producing the
Esqual kits. Jabiru USA was the US importer for Esqual. This aircraft
complemented the Jabiru line of aircraft as well as providing for a low wing
alternative to the high wing Jabirus.
The wing of the Lightning was designed much like the pressure recovery
wheelpants. The wheelpants are from the RV series of aircraft and modified
to suit our own needs. RV borrowed the design from Cessna. The idea is
that there was a better way to fair the landing gear that would result in
less drag. At the point where the airflow starts to detach from the surface
of the gear, the shape would create a suction that would reattach the
boundry layer. The wing was designed as a kind of teardrop shape with
concave trailing edge shape. It is a high laminar flow wing.
The wing on the Lightning is similar to the wing that was originally on the
Esqual wing, but made especially for the Lightning. For various reasons
that airfoil was traded for a different one and the molds were destroyed.
The new Esqual wing is more of a Clark Y "Hershey Bar" type. That wing will
allow for a shorter takeoff run, but at the same time will float forever if
you come in hot and get in ground effect. In Europe, operating out of grass
strips the lower takeoff run and slower liftoff speeds were more desirable
on a sport plane than all out speed. The Lightning wing is whole different
beast. The speeds are higher on the plane for takeoff and landing. The
flaps work much better than the Esqual in that they provide the needed drag
where the Esqual is mostly lift and a means of not accelerating when
pointing the nose down, kind of more like a speed brake. As with any glass
plane it will accelerate rapidly when the nose is pointed down in a clean
configuration. On one particular flight test in an Esqual I tested for
aileron flutter after finding and tightning a loose aileron. With the power
to idle in almost a vertical down line the Esqual will quit accelerating and
hold about 185-195 mph indicated. The Lightning will eagerly pass through
200 and rapidly accelerate past Vne.
There were two "hybrids" and one prototype aircraft. The first hybrid,
which we refer to as the "Frankensqual" is an Esqual fuselage with the
prototype set of Lightning wings. It has an old 80hp Jabiru 2200 engine and
will do 160mph flat out! The airplane is about twice as pitch sensitive as
the Lightning with much lighter feeling on the controls. It has a far aft
CG because of the lightweight of the engine and had each wing that was
60lbs. heavier. This airplane had very impressive performance and after
about 15 minutes of flying it you get used to the sensitivity. The next was
Buz's plane, which tested the wheelpants, gear leg fairings, and the cowling
for the lightning. Buz built the fastest Esqual in the world, by about
40-50mph! In fact, his plane is similar in performance to the Lightning.
In an all out speed comparison at 5,000 feet the prototype Lightning pulled
away from Buzs plane by about 1-2 knots. The pitch of the prop wasn't set
to the optimal level on the prototype at the time in its defense. Some of
the speed can certainly be attributed to Buzs craftmanship and attention to
detail. For those of you who have seen it you know what I mean. Getting
everything faired over and making sure that you have a tight fit and smooth
finish amounts to drag reduction, and superb looks. Buz also got custom
leather interior and foam fitted seats put in. I encourage any of you
builders to do something similar. The cloth seats are comfortable, but
those leather/foam seats just really feel nice and make for a comfortable
ride.
The prototype, as did Greg Hobbs' plane had a thicker tail section, which
was the result of a miscommunication. The fiberglass layups were extremely
thick in the tail, which resulted in a much heavier fuselage with an aft CG.
While this is great for speed, it is horrible for loading arrangements and
total useful load. All of the newer planes have a lighter fuselage, which
should mean better takeoff performance and acceleration. The prototype also
had an early horizontal stabilizer that was (I think) 6lbs heavier per side.
It has since been replaced with a production tail. Nick is continually
finding little ways to improve performance, looks, functionality, etc. This
is as much his baby as anybody's and he continually tweaks things. The
prototype eventually got to a little over 200mph TAS in level flight. That
was at greater than the redline 3300 rpm though.
Now on to the Pilot Report:
First off, approaching the airplane you notice that it is a very nice
looking plane. The complex curves of the composite aircraft look very
similar to that of a Lancair or Cirrus. The plane is smaller than either
and looks fast just sitting there. A walk around is similar to any other
light airplane with attention to the composites. I like to get down to eye
level with the surface and look for any chips or cracks that may indicate
delamination. So far I've never found any, which is the way it should be
for a newly built plane, but it is a different type of a thing than you look
for in a metal airplane. I pay careful attention to the tail area and
stabilizers. The wings are extremely strong and both main wing spars cross
through the fuselage, under the seat. The rear of the wing attaches to the
fuselage without a carry through structure.
Getting in the airplane is accomplished by climbing up on the wing, being
careful to avoid stepping on the flaps. The sides of the plane are fairly
low and you can easily throw a leg over into the cockpit. At this point you
want to step into the seat and then your other leg goes over and into the
floorboard. Once seated you find that there is adequate room for two adults
to fit comfortably, even for long trips. The center console does get in the
way, keeping you from moving the stick to the stops because it hits your
knees. Future planes will have a console that terminates at the edge of the
seat. This should fix the problem. Sitting in the plane the seats are
reclined a bit. I find that on a long trip this made me want to raise my
head forward and that was uncomfortable after a while. If the plane is
going to be used for some long trips I would suggest fashioning some type of
head rests. This of course would limit the useful load some though. The
visibility is incredible with that bubble canopy. The canopy itself is much
clearer and free of distortion when compared to the Esqual. Another thing
is that the Lightning has a longer nose and gives a difference perspective
than flying in an Esqual.
With two on board and 10 degrees of flaps the plane will Flying Greg's
airplane I found that the airplane was very responsive. The airplane will
rotate the nosewheel to a degree or so at about 50 mph and will hop into the
air at a little less than 60mph. Once airborne a speed of 80mph will give
you greater than 1000 feet per minute climb. The airplane is nimble, about
90 degrees of rolls per second. It has a really nice feel to it. The
pushrods give a direct feedback from the plane and have a firm, but not
heavy feel. This gives the plane a sporty feel, but not a twitchy overly
sensitive feel. In a climb with high RPM and low speeds the plane requires
some good rudder input. Again the controls are firm, but not heavy. Greg's
airplane had a trim control issue at first, which caused us to run out of
trim, and the nose would still fall at certain speeds. The plane can be
flown in all operating configurations without trim, but it is more
comfortable and easy to fly with the use of trim. The plane can be flown
hands off when in unaccelerated steady-state flight in trimmed
configuration. Again, on a long trip a dual axis autopilot would be nice to
have, especially when coupled with the Grand Rapids EFIS. That would even
do virtual approaches on autopilot.
Landing speeds seemed to fall right in place if you can enter the pattern at
no more than 110mph and slow to around 100 on downwind. The plane flies a
nice at the 65mph final approach speed. The plane seems to have good rudder
control and excellent aileron control authority in these lower speed ranges
as well. Landing is more challenging in some ways than the Esqual. The
Lightning doesn't really float. It is similar to a high performance Mooney
in that the laminar flow wing flies to a point and then it stops. The trick
is to round out the flare with a slight nose high attitude just as you reach
the stall speed of between 45-55mph depending on configuration. I liked
using 20 degrees of flaps instead of 30 degrees. For me it seemed to give a
flatter and better feel on the approach. 30 degrees of flaps led to a good
decent angle and although the plane will land just as smooth, I felt that
this wing wanted to fly onto the runway.
Flying Greg's plane out to the Tucson area we covered around 500 miles in a
little over 2.7 hours. We burned approximately 6.0 gph at 2950 RPM (high
side of cruise RPM) Greg admitted that the jets weren't quiet tweaked as
well as they could be and that a slightly lower fuel burn would be in the
near future for his plane. We also didn't have the plane all fastened up
and as sleek as it could be. The plane still had a slight right roll, which
resulted in about an inch of each aileron being deflected and causing undue
drag. Greg had planned on fairing over some small parts around the
wheelpants and gear leg intersections. We had hotter than normal CHT's due
to an 'experiment' that Greg did with adding a ramp to one side of the
cylinder heads at the entrance. This proved to actually make the majority
of the air go over the cylinders at any angle of attack and out the outflow.
I understand that with the ramp removed the CHT's are more uniform now.
With these little improvements that Greg has done I imagine he'll pick up
another 10 knots or so at least.
There had been the thought of testing some gap seals on the prototype to get
some additional speed for free type of an improvement. (UPDATE: just about
to start testing on this. I have access to an instrumentation package that
will be installed in the aircraft for flight-testing. After the flights the
data can be downloaded to a laptop. This can give a quick and very accurate
means to determine best what performance gains there will be. Buz suggested
that I borrow this little box a little longer and obtain some more data to
back up what he and Nick did with pencil, paper, and a calculator.) I had
also suggested a winglet design for cruise performance, looks, and the added
stability for long cruise flights. If correctly designed they would
slightly increase speed, increase range and climb rates, decrease takeoff
roll, but I believe the looks are worth as much if not more than the
performance gains.
If any of you know Greg or if he is part of the list, tell him that I'd be
happy to make the journey out west to fly any of the customer planes on some
of the first flights. They all are a little bit different and all have
their own special needs as far as setting them up. Once you get things
right though you get a "Lightning" fast airplane that is comfortable and
stable. Hope you all enjoyed the read and any little improvements to the
plane that you want to suggest I'll be sure to relay to Nick.
Brian Whittingham
_________________________________________________________________
Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into
something more.
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG
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: | Thinner center console |
In sitting in the Lightning today, it was just a "tad" tight on my big butt!
I wonder if there are plans to widen the cockpit, or make some modifications for
a little more space? I'm 6'-2" and a little on the wide side.
One thought would be a glass center console that is more narrow than the metal
version currently being used?
Jim!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89193#89193
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 |
|
Brian- Thanks for the detailed report.
Any speed mods that anyone can think of need to be
brought to your and Nick's attention. Everyone
building a Lightning can benefit and will be grateful
for any mods that can be made.
I gave Ryan Gross at Green Landings a book by Ken
Pacer called 'Speed with Economy'. It is available
online at www.speedwitheconomy.com.
Ken got drastic speed improvements on his Mustang.
A 200 mph cruise would make the Lightning incredible.
Also, I looked at the Dynamic WT9 website and was
unimpressed with the cruise speeds considering it has
retractable landing gear.
If I was reading the specs correctly, it looks like a
really slow airplane compared to the Lightning. How
is it possible that it is so slow considering it has
so much reduced drag with the retractable gear?
The removable wings seem like a neat thing but I don't
know if I want two pins holding my wings in place.
The parachute is a nice thing, but hope it is not in
the firewall forward right behind the engine like on
some planes. Does anyone agree that the WT9 doesn't
compare to the Lightning? They do look very similar.
Anyone know how easy it is to add autopilot to the
Lightning down the road after the build is complete?
Charles
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
>
> I'll repost this pilot report for those of you who
> may have joined recently
> or didn't catch it before. Those pilots who have
> flown the Lightning have
> reported very similar things as in here. Let me
> once again say that
> although I have worked with the Arion company from
> time to time I do not
> work for them. You won't find me on the payroll.
> Right now I'm trying to
> tune in a little more speed by doing some minor
> airframe cleanup which I
> hope to offer as a "speed kit" if the results are
> favorable. I believe my
> current work will yield about another 8mph. My
> ultimate goal would be to
> try to get the high altitude cruise speed up to
> 200mph, but I believe that
> will take some more doing past the current mods that
> I have planned. I am a
> pilot who has on ocassion flown the time off of
> experimental aircraft or
> delivered them at the request of the owner/builders.
> I have flown about 30
> different types of aircraft at this point. I am 25
> years old and have been
> flying since I was 12. I don't, however, come from
> an aviation family. In
> fact none of my family are pilots except for me. My
> current experiments
> with the Lightning I believe was hatched from
> sitting in the hangar and
> talking with Buz and Nick about some airframe
> cleanup. I got Pete and Nick
> to give me authorization to fly the prototype on
> these flights. I am also
> using this as my topic for a thesis and while I hope
> for favorable results,
> I must at all costs remain objective. Partly these
> experiments are to help
> me understand the relationships of different drag
> reduction techniques on
> this aircraft, and partly to see what kind of
> enhancements in terms of
> performance, but mainly in terms of efficiency that
> it can achieve. I tell
> you all this to show that I am trying to be
> objective but also that I am for
> lack of a better term, a "Lightning Enthusiast." No
> reason other than I've
> flown it and am seriously impressed by the handling,
> performance, and
> efficiency. Now on with the PIREP:
>
> I've got several hours in the Lightning now.
> Hopefully this won't bore all
> of you and I'll try not to be too technical. Let me
> start with a little
> history on the Lightning. The Lightning was
> developed around the same lines
> as the Esqual, a light, fast, fun, and affordable
> sport plane. The
> Lightning however is a totally new design that
> exceeds the quality and
> performance of the Esqual in every way! The Vol
> Medici company that
> marketed the Esqual sold off the company and (so
> far) stop producing the
> Esqual kits. Jabiru USA was the US importer for
> Esqual. This aircraft
> complemented the Jabiru line of aircraft as well as
> providing for a low wing
> alternative to the high wing Jabirus.
>
> The wing of the Lightning was designed much like the
> pressure recovery
> wheelpants. The wheelpants are from the RV series
> of aircraft and modified
> to suit our own needs. RV borrowed the design from
> Cessna. The idea is
> that there was a better way to fair the landing gear
> that would result in
> less drag. At the point where the airflow starts to
> detach from the surface
> of the gear, the shape would create a suction that
> would reattach the
> boundry layer. The wing was designed as a kind of
> teardrop shape with
> concave trailing edge shape. It is a high laminar
> flow wing.
>
> The wing on the Lightning is similar to the wing
> that was originally on the
> Esqual wing, but made especially for the Lightning.
> For various reasons
> that airfoil was traded for a different one and the
> molds were destroyed.
> The new Esqual wing is more of a Clark Y "Hershey
> Bar" type. That wing will
> allow for a shorter takeoff run, but at the same
> time will float forever if
> you come in hot and get in ground effect. In
> Europe, operating out of grass
> strips the lower takeoff run and slower liftoff
> speeds were more desirable
> on a sport plane than all out speed. The Lightning
> wing is whole different
> beast. The speeds are higher on the plane for
> takeoff and landing. The
> flaps work much better than the Esqual in that they
> provide the needed drag
> where the Esqual is mostly lift and a means of not
> accelerating when
> pointing the nose down, kind of more like a speed
> brake. As with any glass
> plane it will accelerate rapidly when the nose is
> pointed down in a clean
> configuration. On one particular flight test in an
> Esqual I tested for
> aileron flutter after finding and tightning a loose
> aileron. With the power
> to idle in almost a vertical down line the Esqual
> will quit accelerating and
> hold about 185-195 mph indicated. The Lightning
> will eagerly pass through
> 200 and rapidly accelerate past Vne.
>
> There were two "hybrids" and one prototype aircraft.
> The first hybrid,
> which we refer to as the "Frankensqual" is an Esqual
> fuselage with the
> prototype set of Lightning wings. It has an old
> 80hp Jabiru 2200 engine and
> will do 160mph flat out! The airplane is about
> twice as pitch sensitive as
> the Lightning with much lighter feeling on the
> controls. It has a far aft
> CG because of the lightweight of the engine and had
> each wing that was
> 60lbs. heavier. This airplane had very impressive
> performance and after
> about 15 minutes of flying it you get used to the
> sensitivity. The next was
> Buz's plane, which tested the wheelpants, gear leg
> fairings, and the cowling
> for the lightning. Buz built the fastest Esqual in
> the world, by about
> 40-50mph! In fact, his plane is similar in
> performance to the Lightning.
> In an all out speed comparison at 5,000 feet the
> prototype Lightning pulled
> away from Buzs plane by about 1-2 knots. The pitch
> of the prop wasn't set
> to the optimal level on the prototype at the time in
> its defense. Some of
> the speed can certainly be attributed to Buzs
> craftmanship and attention to
> detail. For those of you who have seen it you know
> what I mean. Getting
> everything faired over and making sure that you have
> a tight fit and smooth
> finish amounts to drag reduction, and superb looks.
> Buz also got custom
> leather interior and foam fitted seats put in. I
> encourage any of you
> builders to do something similar. The cloth seats
> are comfortable, but
> those leather/foam seats just really feel nice and
> make for a comfortable
> ride.
>
> The prototype, as did Greg Hobbs' plane had a
> thicker tail section, which
> was the result of a miscommunication. The
> fiberglass layups were extremely
> thick in the tail, which resulted in a much heavier
> fuselage with an aft CG.
> While this is great for speed, it is horrible for
> loading arrangements and
> total useful load. All of the newer planes have a
> lighter fuselage, which
> should mean better takeoff performance and
> acceleration. The prototype also
> had an early horizontal stabilizer that was (I
> think) 6lbs heavier per side.
> It has since been replaced with a production tail.
> Nick is continually
> finding little ways to improve performance, looks,
> functionality, etc. This
> is as much his baby as anybody's and he continually
> tweaks things. The
> prototype eventually got to a little over 200mph TAS
> in level flight. That
> was at greater than the redline 3300 rpm though.
>
> Now on to the Pilot Report:
>
> First off, approaching the airplane you notice that
> it
=== message truncated ==
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
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: | Thinner center console |
Jim,
Now that's something different than I've seen. THe ones here in TN at SYI
have a glass center console. It has been redesigned since the prototype to
be thinner. I believe that the Esqual had a similar glass center console.
Maybe Buz can provide you with a picture of his seatpan as I think that he
eliminated this part. If you work with glass then you can probably work it
out to widen the stock seat pans and eliminate the center part. Just an
idea. It can be tight for bigger guys. Interestingly enough though it's
the same width cockpit as a Cessna 182! Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
Message 9
| 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: Thinner center console |
Well, don't get me wrong... You're right; the cockpit width is a good deal wider
than the 172 that I fly a lot. When you're big, you look for all sorts of
ways to make more space. I think if I could shave a inch or two off the center
console around my butt, it would be even more comofrtable.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89198#89198
Message 10
| 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 |
|
Charles,
The parachute on the Lightning is behind the seats. Mr. Davis whose
airplane just flew a day or two ago is going to add an autopilot after he
flies the time off and gets it back home. So he should be able to tell you
how the install was. Can't be too hard though if he decided to wait until
after the build and fly-off. The best guess that I have about how the
Lightning can be faster without retracts than the WT-9 would be that it's
almost like comparing apples and oranges. THe lightning paid attention to
lessons learned from experience building Esquals. The section of the
fuselage aft of the wing remains wide continuing back from the fuselage
further. This shape is better for lower drag. The cowling on the Lightning
is probably a lot less draggy than the WT-9, but that's just a guess. The
wings are a huge part of the total drag of the airplane. I believe this
figure is around 75% if I remember correctly. The Lightning wing is a
wonderful performer for manuevering flight, cruise, speed, and climb. Have
no idea what airfoil the WT-9 uses, but probably a less exotic and copy of
the old Clark Y or something.
Now there's been some interesting discussion about landing gear drag. I can
tell you that wheels and gear legs unfaired create a lot more drag than
faired ones. Buz had a huge speed increase just by putting on the fairings
and wheelpants. We never got a chance to test an Esqual fairing against a
Lightning one though. Cirrus and Diamond aircraft had considered making a
retract for their single engine planes, but found that with "pressure
recovery" wheelpants the drag was negligible. The insurance, weight, and
complexity increases with retracts. The Lightning has pressure recovery
wheelpants that are similar to the ones you'll find on the Van series of
aircraft. They minimize drag moreso than just a normal faired wheelpant
because the airflow stays attached to the unit further aft. I've not flown
the fixed gear or retractable WT-9, but I bet the speed difference isn't
over 2-5 knots total. It is an interesting debate, but if I was going to
design a high speed single I think that I'd make it fixed gear to help with
insurance and as a pilot it's just less to go wrong and have to maintain.
(although I do kind of like the old Mooney's with the all manual Johnson Bar
gear, emergency and normal gear extension is the same procedure!) Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces
Message 11
| 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: Thinner center console |
Jim,
I haven't built a Lightning, just flown them, but I've seen them many
times in various stages, and I don't think that there's any reason why you
couldn't eliminate that center console all together if you so chose. THat's
part of why I love experimental aircraft. Maybe Pete or Nick will chime in
here and verify that this would be possible. Think that would give you
another couple of inches of butt room. On a side note, you'd probably
appreciate Mr. Davis's "Big Bubba Sonex". It has been converted to a one
seater. I'm not a very big guy, but I like that it had a really wide
cockpit like that. He flies it back and forth some to work on his
Lightning. It also has a Jabiru engine. Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
Message 12
| 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 |
|
"pressure recovery wheelpants" can you explain how
these differ from regular wheelpants?
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
>
> Charles,
> The parachute on the Lightning is behind the
> seats. Mr. Davis whose
> airplane just flew a day or two ago is going to add
> an autopilot after he
> flies the time off and gets it back home. So he
> should be able to tell you
> how the install was. Can't be too hard though if he
> decided to wait until
> after the build and fly-off. The best guess that I
> have about how the
> Lightning can be faster without retracts than the
> WT-9 would be that it's
> almost like comparing apples and oranges. THe
> lightning paid attention to
> lessons learned from experience building Esquals.
> The section of the
> fuselage aft of the wing remains wide continuing
> back from the fuselage
> further. This shape is better for lower drag. The
> cowling on the Lightning
> is probably a lot less draggy than the WT-9, but
> that's just a guess. The
> wings are a huge part of the total drag of the
> airplane. I believe this
> figure is around 75% if I remember correctly. The
> Lightning wing is a
> wonderful performer for manuevering flight, cruise,
> speed, and climb. Have
> no idea what airfoil the WT-9 uses, but probably a
> less exotic and copy of
> the old Clark Y or something.
>
> Now there's been some interesting discussion about
> landing gear drag. I can
> tell you that wheels and gear legs unfaired create a
> lot more drag than
> faired ones. Buz had a huge speed increase just by
> putting on the fairings
> and wheelpants. We never got a chance to test an
> Esqual fairing against a
> Lightning one though. Cirrus and Diamond aircraft
> had considered making a
> retract for their single engine planes, but found
> that with "pressure
> recovery" wheelpants the drag was negligible. The
> insurance, weight, and
> complexity increases with retracts. The Lightning
> has pressure recovery
> wheelpants that are similar to the ones you'll find
> on the Van series of
> aircraft. They minimize drag moreso than just a
> normal faired wheelpant
> because the airflow stays attached to the unit
> further aft. I've not flown
> the fixed gear or retractable WT-9, but I bet the
> speed difference isn't
> over 2-5 knots total. It is an interesting debate,
> but if I was going to
> design a high speed single I think that I'd make it
> fixed gear to help with
> insurance and as a pilot it's just less to go wrong
> and have to maintain.
> (although I do kind of like the old Mooney's with
> the all manual Johnson Bar
> gear, emergency and normal gear extension is the
> same procedure!) Brian W.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends
> list with Windows Live
> Spaces
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Message 13
| 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 |
|
Charles,
I have some pics somewhere of the differences in the wheelpants. I
believe the idea originally came from a NACA report and was first used by
the Cessna company. If you look down from above it is very much a teardrop
shape. The design has been windtunel tested and proven to produce less drag
than simply putting a minimal area fairing around the wheels. The term
pressure recovery comes from the shape producing a low pressure area in the
spot where the boundary layer would normally seperate from the standard
fairing. This helps to "suck" the layer back down, reattaching it to the
surface of the fairing and keeping it attached longer. This helps to reduce
the amount of drag.
The same idea is used on the wing section. It is a highly laminar flow
wing. (I'd love to do some oilflow or tuft testing on this wing!) It uses
the same idea to help the boundary layer stay attached to the wing further
back. This helps to reduce the amount of parasite drag and therefore the
total drag on the plane. If you read my earlier pirep you'll see references
to dive testing the Esqual as compared with a Lightning. The Esqual wing is
a dragier planform.
Buz's Esqual tested the Lightning wheelpants and gear leg fairings. Between
this and a Lightning cowling (modified because the noselengths are
different) he saw almost 50mph over a stock Esqual. So there's definately
drag reduction there. What we don't know is how much more speed he got than
if he had a non-pressure recovery wheelpant, like on the Esqual. I can't
remember but I believe that Buz also has the same wheel that is found on the
Lightning which is wider than the Esqual, but I can't confirm that. Brian
W.
_________________________________________________________________
Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into
something more.
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG
Message 14
| 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: Thinner center console |
I just turned on the computer (been working on the chapter Zodiac XL all
day) and read the recent comments on more seat room and auto pilots. The auto
pilot question is easy. I have a TruTrak with pitch, roll, and altitude hold
in my airplane. I love it. It will track a heading or a GPS flight plan and
hold altitude. It was easy to install and hook up. My Esqual LS (Lightning
Stuff) has many Lightning mods - including a Lightning central beam assembly.
The central beam assembly, in addition to the wing spars, also has the
pitch and roll controls attached to it. That makes the auto pilot servos hook
up
pretty straight forward. Pete, Ben, Nick or Lamont (and probably Mark by
now) will all know how it is done. I have sent photos of my servo installation
to Dennis (down under) and John (Trade-A-Plane country). Can send photos
to you as well when you get to that point of your build.
As to the center console, you can not do away with it. It has the
elevator control rod running through it as well as the flap motor in that area.
However, you may be able to make it a little thinner. Also, this afternoon I
looked at Charlie Keith's new Lightning kit (it was delivered for Christmas)
and it has the new molded seat pans which should give you more "seat" room.
The seats on the Lightning are completely different from the stock Esqual.
That is just one of the many things that is so much better on the Lightning
design. The Esqual had a double molded seat pan - meaning both seats are
individually molded into one wide assembly. (It is hard to get it in and out
because of the its size.) Since I had flown the original hybrid Lightning
several times (Esqual fuselage with Lightning wings) I knew this was one area I
wanted to change on my airplane. I am also 6'2" and about 215 lbs. When you
first get in the seats feel very comfortable - molded to your butt. However
after an hour or so, I was getting "hot spots" on both hips. So when I was
building my Esqual seats, I put in a "wide butt" mod that pushed out the seat
pans on both sides in these areas. It helped a lot. I think you could do
something similar with the new Lightning seat pans, but you may not have to
since they look wider than the original flat seat bottom design. I would suggest
visiting SYI after the guys get the new Lightning demonstrator completed and
see how those seats feel. Of course get a flight in it as well.
Some of the other mods I did to my airplane was to install larger main
gear wheels and tires, installed the Lighting gear leg fairings and wheel
pants, and to install a modified Lightning cowling. The Lightnings use the same
main wheel and tire set up. When I first started flying my airplane with no
wheel pants and no gear leg fairings, the max speed was 165 TAS mph at full
throttle at 5000 feet. Then with the Lightning gear leg fairings only, the
5000' true airspeed was 175 MPH. The airplane also picked up about 100 RPM
showing that the engine didn't have to work as hard with the gear leg
fairings on. Next I put the Lightning wheel pants on and the rpm increased again,
this time to just over red line, to 3350, so I had to pull the power back.
Now, running with slightly reduced power to hold the engine to 3300 rpm at
5000', the true airspeed was 188 mph. Call it 185 to 188 as it was bouncing
around a little. So you see, the Lightning fairings, wheel pants, and cowling
are very effective. I think the current Lightning prototype is only a few
mph faster than 31BZ, but remember it is a heaver prototype without the "whiz
bang" slick finish. Production models will probably be 10 mph or so faster on
top end. I think Brian's goal of 200 mph is certainly achievable.
As to the Dynamic WT9, the Czechs make some good airplanes. However,
you will be paying extra to get it shipped here, you will pay more for the
airplane, and you will not have the Jabiru engine. All negatives in my book.
Your mileage may vary.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 15
| 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 |
|
Hi All,
When I first started to research a glass kit plane I
found the Dynamic and I too was drawn by its good
looks and simple design.
My close friend is hails from ints country of origin
(I am using this term because I can't bloodywell
remember how to spell what was 'Czhecoslovakia').
His family still live there, he has an aviation
background, has conducted aviation related business
there and travels back there regularly.
Of course I asked him for his opinion on the aircraft
and though he had no direct knowledge of it or the
manufacturer he admitted that the specs sure read well
after doing his own research.
I stress that this is no reflection on the Dynamic's
manufacturer but irrespective of the specs he strongly
discouraged me from entering into ordering from his
'countrymen'. I think Buz alluded to matters such as
shipping costs and distances, and also on this list
matters of communication/language glitches have been
referred to when dealing with Europe. At least with my
American friends I can understand their English (most
of the time at least!).
This is in addition to the interesting mindset of
manufacturers and entrepreuners there who are still
torn between old Eastern European production attitudes
and the the glitz of western marketing, sometimes
without being able to marry the two very well
understandably. The outcome is sometimes not a happy
customer and one who is badly frustrated while
attempting to sort out matters.
Just my two cents worth.
Laurie
Sydney
--- N1BZRich@aol.com wrote:
> I just turned on the computer (been working on the
> chapter Zodiac XL all
> day) and read the recent comments on more seat room
> and auto pilots. The auto
> pilot question is easy. I have a TruTrak with
> pitch, roll, and altitude hold
> in my airplane. I love it. It will track a
> heading or a GPS flight plan and
> hold altitude. It was easy to install and hook up.
> My Esqual LS (Lightning
> Stuff) has many Lightning mods - including a
> Lightning central beam assembly.
> The central beam assembly, in addition to the wing
> spars, also has the
> pitch and roll controls attached to it. That makes
> the auto pilot servos hook up
> pretty straight forward. Pete, Ben, Nick or Lamont
> (and probably Mark by
> now) will all know how it is done. I have sent
> photos of my servo installation
> to Dennis (down under) and John (Trade-A-Plane
> country). Can send photos
> to you as well when you get to that point of your
> build.
> As to the center console, you can not do away
> with it. It has the
> elevator control rod running through it as well as
> the flap motor in that area.
> However, you may be able to make it a little
> thinner. Also, this afternoon I
> looked at Charlie Keith's new Lightning kit (it was
> delivered for Christmas)
> and it has the new molded seat pans which should
> give you more "seat" room.
> The seats on the Lightning are completely different
> from the stock Esqual.
> That is just one of the many things that is so much
> better on the Lightning
> design. The Esqual had a double molded seat pan -
> meaning both seats are
> individually molded into one wide assembly. (It is
> hard to get it in and out
> because of the its size.) Since I had flown the
> original hybrid Lightning
> several times (Esqual fuselage with Lightning wings)
> I knew this was one area I
> wanted to change on my airplane. I am also 6'2" and
> about 215 lbs. When you
> first get in the seats feel very comfortable -
> molded to your butt. However
> after an hour or so, I was getting "hot spots" on
> both hips. So when I was
> building my Esqual seats, I put in a "wide butt" mod
> that pushed out the seat
> pans on both sides in these areas. It helped a
> lot. I think you could do
> something similar with the new Lightning seat pans,
> but you may not have to
> since they look wider than the original flat seat
> bottom design. I would suggest
> visiting SYI after the guys get the new Lightning
> demonstrator completed and
> see how those seats feel. Of course get a flight
> in it as well.
> Some of the other mods I did to my airplane was
> to install larger main
> gear wheels and tires, installed the Lighting gear
> leg fairings and wheel
> pants, and to install a modified Lightning cowling.
> The Lightnings use the same
> main wheel and tire set up. When I first started
> flying my airplane with no
> wheel pants and no gear leg fairings, the max speed
> was 165 TAS mph at full
> throttle at 5000 feet. Then with the Lightning
> gear leg fairings only, the
> 5000' true airspeed was 175 MPH. The airplane
> also picked up about 100 RPM
> showing that the engine didn't have to work as
> hard with the gear leg
> fairings on. Next I put the Lightning wheel pants
> on and the rpm increased again,
> this time to just over red line, to 3350, so I had
> to pull the power back.
> Now, running with slightly reduced power to hold
> the engine to 3300 rpm at
> 5000', the true airspeed was 188 mph. Call it 185
> to 188 as it was bouncing
> around a little. So you see, the Lightning
> fairings, wheel pants, and cowling
> are very effective. I think the current Lightning
> prototype is only a few
> mph faster than 31BZ, but remember it is a heaver
> prototype without the "whiz
> bang" slick finish. Production models will
> probably be 10 mph or so faster on
> top end. I think Brian's goal of 200 mph is
> certainly achievable.
> As to the Dynamic WT9, the Czechs make some good
> airplanes. However,
> you will be paying extra to get it shipped here, you
> will pay more for the
> airplane, and you will not have the Jabiru engine.
> All negatives in my book.
> Your mileage may vary.
> Blue Skies,
> Buz
>
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
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! --
|