Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:52 AM - Re: Winglets or modified winglets? (Laurie Hoffman)
2. 04:44 AM - Re: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser... (Ron Ritchie)
3. 08:28 AM - Lightning? (Jim Langley)
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: | Re: Winglets or modified winglets? |
Hi All,
I just sent an email to Peter saying the same as you
Buz before I read your post..I've never seen a
combination droop tip/winglet before and the idea is
fascinating.
Sailplanes have ben using winglets for many years now
and few current production models would not have them
fitted at the factory or as an option. Two later
versions of my motorglider that I share hangarage with
both have removeable winglets fitted.
This source of expereince and technology may not be as
removed from the Lightning application as one might
think, especially in terms of airspeed. Inter thermal
speeds of modern open class gliders (spans of over
15metres) are regularly in the range of 120-140mph and
often up to 170mph during final glide.
Sailplane manufacturers have already developed
winglets suited to Lightning speeds so would be a
source of aplicable info.
Pilot reports are often non committal about large
performance gains but are consistent when it comes to
at least some gains. Dont know of any one removing
winglets once fitted or electing to never use
removable ones. Of course this may be something to do
with just how hot aircraft look with them fitted!
Laurie
Sydney
--- N1BZRich@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> The tip looks good, but until you try it, there is
> no way to know how it
> might work. I have no idea how you determine the
> various sizes and angles to
> use, but what you have done certainly looka unique.
> And it is an impressive
> bit of fiberglass work with the compound curves and
> angles. I have never seen
> anyone combine a droop tip with a winglet. I have
> seen the up turned Hoerner
> tips with winglets (I think they have started
> calling them "blended tips")
> and they obviously work. That way should be much
> easier to construct. Be sure
> to let us know how your design works out.
> Blue Skies,
> Buz
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's
> free at http://www.aol.com.
>
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
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: | Re: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser... |
Hello Nick et al'
I am new to the site in the last few weeks and have enjoyed
learning more about the lightning through you fellows. I felt I had
to respond to Nick's message about the sport cruiser. My mate down
the road has been distributing the Zenair for a number of years and
has now moved on to the Sportcruiser. He received his first aircraft
(still the only one in the country) in mid December 06 and has sold 6
off it with 4 more conditional sales and 10 spots in the
manufacturing line. Several aero clubs and training organizations are
looking into the purchase of a sportcruiser for training purposes.
His 16 prepaid spots are now being re-allocated further down the line
due to manufacturing demands and he and clients are not happy
chappies as you might appreciate. According to him there are ~500
planes on back order and although 1 a day is coming off the line it
will be a while before u get a plane, at least in this country. I
have flown in the plane twice the second time 600 miles from the
North Island to the South Island here in New Zealand. The plane flown
is pretty standard as per the web site specs, 100 hp rotax with 3
blade wood comp prop. Here are my thoughts and observations and
please be aware that I do not have anywhere near the flying hours
under my bum as some of you fellas... Yes it is a nice plane to look
at with nice lines and visual aerodynamics. It attracts a lot of
attention at our air shows and fly-ins. In my view the lightning is
better in all respects. The wing is very large and accounts for the
legitimate stall speeds of low 30's - high 20's. I have landed 6
times at ~ 30-34 mph. The thickness of the wing make the wing lockers
feasible which are useful. The cockpit is enormous for a microlight.
I have seen a 6'6" pilot/owner of a French microlight banbi, which he
climbs into with the help of a very large shoehorn; sit in the sport
cruiser with 4-5" of headroom to spare. He was surprised and a wee
bit gob smacked himself. Storage behind the seats is also generous.
On our trip to the South Island we carried the 2 of us ~ 180 lbs
each, full fuel 30 gallons (130 litres). Behind the seats we stowed;
2 sleeping bags, 2 small suitcases, laptop, awning, 2 folding chairs.
In the wing lockers we stowed; 36 cans (beer) 1 wing locker and
various tie downs tools brochures, pamphlets and handouts in the
other. In so many words we were as loaded as the specs suggest you
should be and perhaps then some! Took off from a backyard grass strip
in ~200 meters (620 ') and flew in tandem with a high wing
Sportrider. At 3500' it was a bit bumpy so worked are way up to 9000'
where it was a smooth fly. The flight south included a 45 minute
flight over the open ocean. It was a smooth comfortable flight. A
monitor of the instruments showed that we rarely achieved better than
100 kts indicated and with 5 kts head wind GS was considerably less
varying between 86-94. On the trip south the Sportrider with the same
engine prop set up consistently pulled away although it carried less
weight. The pilot/owner has indicated he regularly cruises 110+ and
with a constant speed prop he expects the 120 kts (138 mph). His next
aircraft, due July, has a constant speed prop and glass panel so we
will see! In my first demo flight of the cruiser I did not experience
110kts, more like 100-105 tops, and that was with 1/2 fuel 2
passengers and no other weight factors and dead calm conditions. I
will be interested to see what the constant speed prop does. My
personal opinion is that I do not expect that much difference and if
120 is achievable it is probably the max and a big push, certainly
not a comfortable 65-75% cruise.
I have been interested enough in this aircraft to have a friend
with over 5000 hrs flying and multi type rated as well as chief
instructor at a local flying school have a fly and give me his
opinion. He is straight up. His initial opinion was "This is not a
microlight it is an airplane!" I believe he would say the same re:
the lightning and in fact more. He couldn=92t get over how big the
wings were for the size of the aircraft and commented no wonder it
had such a low stall. He has privately told me the aircraft is very
nice to fly with docile characteristics and would provide lots of
enjoyment--- BUT--- the controls are not balanced. The elevators are
far more sensitive than the ailerons. This is something I realized in
retrospect as I flew the plane I found it very difficult at first to
keep it straight and level. I just put this down to my low hours. He
has said he has flown with me to often to accept that and in fact the
plane just isn't set up right, not being balanced correctly. He
suggested it may be as simple as adjusting controls or it may be more
of a design issue. He has gone so far as to say that someone is going
to get hurt or cause some structural damage to this plane due to the
overly sensitive elevators. So that is my experience. I had a more or
less standard plane priced up for night flying with a constant speed
prop at $150,000 NZ. I believe it is safe to say the sportcruiser is
a good aircraft, aside from the balance issue, and we will be seeing
a lot of them in the air and on the ground here in NZ. I have decided
it is not for me. Thanks to you fellas, Dennis in Aust. and some
discussion with Nick I will be building a lightning. I am looking
forward to the lightning as first of type in the country and fully
expect my fellow Kiwis to come to appreciate its looks and
performance as I do. Trust you find this useful. Cheers from Down Under
Ron Ritchie
ritchie@wave.co.nz
On 8/05/2007, at 7:02 AM, nick otterback wrote:
> To the Group ...
>
> I recently recieved a forward from over the pond about the
> lightning, it was from one of the sport cruiser lists....The "chap"
> if you will said that the lightning was good looking but not nearly
> as sexy as the Sport cruiser ...very interesting...also that the
> perfromance specs for the lightning were impossible, with that old
> massey ferguson engine up front (must be a rotax driver talking
> about the jabiru). Just thought i would throw this out and see what
> the reaction was...
>
> Nick Otterback
>
> nick otterback <vettin74@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
>
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 |
|
As most of you know, I went through several months of looking for the right
aircraft. If I was going the route of a kit, I wanted builder's assist fro
m
the company or the rep. I wanted fast, good looking and economical to run.
I wanted tri-gear and the ability to get in and out of most small airports.
Finally, I wanted to spend less than $100k, significantly, if I could help
it.
After eliminating about 10-12 aircraft, I can down to two choices, Lightnin
g
and SportCruiser.
Here's a forum message that I left for a friend who is also interested in
the same two airplanes.
I flew in the demo Lightning from Green Landings today and I have two
reactions; wow and dang it!
We flew for about 45 minutes, doing turns, climbs, descents, stalls, 90
degree rolls and some other fun stuff. The aircraft handles very nicely,
rolls easily, and the Jabiru gets it off the ground quickly.
Some things that I noticed when comparing it to the SC:
Steep turns are very easy and I felt like I could easily roll it a
controlled 360 degrees with not a lot of effort.
The SC is more stable when quickly pulling back from a steep turn or climb.
The demo Lightning wanted to tail bob when recovering. This may be because
it is more sensitive when carrying more weight, or some other reason that I
do not understand right now.
The Jabiru is very LOUD, although this may be how Green Landings had it
setup. The SC and Rotax is quieter. (I have since learned that the GL demo
has straight pipes! Man Ryan, you like speed dude!)
The view is about the same.
Both are fun to fly, but I felt more adrenalin flowing in the Lightning.
The Lightning is a better looking aircraft. Just something about a nicely
finished composite! I must admit that the SC is a nice looking aircraft
too, just not as nice.
The demo Lightning cabin is small, tiny, cramped and, did I say small?
The SC is big and roomy. I hear the new lightning kits are a little roomier
,
but they would need to widen it about 3 inches to suit my taste. As it was,
I had to tilt my head slightly to the side to
keep from touching the canopy. We were bumping elbows the whole time.
(I since sat in the Arion demo at Sun n Fun and it was a world of
difference; so much so I bought one)
The canopy latch and lock is FAR superior in the SC. By comparison, the
Lightning looks like a bit cheap, (no disrespect intended)=85 (still don't
like the latch, but that's why we build them to suit)
The Lightning is VERY stable in the pattern, but so is the SC, but a bit
bouncy.
I like the foot pedal arrangement in the SC a lot better; more like a 172,
nice!
Getting in and out of the SC is MUCH easier, they really thought things out
with that. I would be looking to modify some things with the Lightning to
make it easier to get in and out.
The Lightning stalls smoothly with lots of notice and easy to recover. The
SC is much gentler and I flew it in a stall for about 2 minutes. I can't se
e
you doing that with the Lightning, as it is more like a standard aircraft
when it stalls.
Both taxi about the same with the same kind of brake control.
All in all and nice flight. I was excited to fly it, but this pretty much
convinced me that the SC is the direction that I would like to go ONLY
because of the space limitations.
Again, I have since sat in the new demo and it really made a word of
difference. Another thing to add is the long delays waiting for the SC. T
he
Lightning is made in the states, so you are not subject to the changing
value of the Euro.
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! --
|