Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:37 AM - Re: EFIS (Laurie Hoffman)
2. 05:47 AM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (Kayberg@aol.com)
3. 05:58 AM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
4. 06:06 AM - Re: EFIS (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
5. 07:30 AM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (Johnny Thompson)
6. 07:45 AM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (Hugh Sontag)
7. 08:53 AM - Canopy seperation Discussion (nick otterback)
8. 09:14 AM - FW: sunglasses with LCD (steve)
9. 10:09 AM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
10. 11:27 AM - Re: FW: sunglasses with LCD (nick otterback)
11. 11:32 AM - Here's a couple (Brian Whittingham)
12. 11:58 AM - Re: Here's a couple (Rick Bowen)
13. 04:13 PM - Re: Here's a couple (nick otterback)
14. 07:41 PM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not ()
15. 09:06 PM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
16. 09:12 PM - Re: LSA compliant vs. not (Mark Stauffer)
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 |
|
Buz,
>From where we stand its you guys who must have to use
inverted airfoils.
Laurie
--- Peter and Jan Disher <pjdisher@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Hi Buz,
>
> Yes mate, What we do down here is simply
> swap the wings over when we put them together.
> Buz, for 25 years I had been looking for an
> a/c kit to buy and out of the blue came "Lightning".
> so, sight unseen I just had to have one, Is half
> built now and it's just looking better all the time.
> No doubt about it, you guys contiued
> corespondence just confirms I have made the right
> decision. I'm looking forward to the day when when
> i'm rolling on 04 Taree.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Disher
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: N1BZRich@aol.com
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Lightning-List: EFIS
>
>
> In a message dated 5/29/2007 1:38:33 A.M. Eastern
> Daylight Time, pjdisher@bigpond.com writes:
> I would just like to say Buz, how much I've
> appreciated and enjoyed all yours and Brian W.
> comments and evaluations on the Lightning
> Hi Peter,
> Darn, you mean someone actually reads all that
> stuff I have written? Anyway, glad to be of help.
> I was fortunate enough to meet the Lightning guys
> just over two years ago and I have thoroughly
> enjoyed that friendship since then. They are all
> dedicated EAA members, aircraft builders, and of
> course helping others to achieve their dreams to
> build and fly an airplane. Good people, and because
> of them I have been able to fly several of the
> Lightnings and all the Jabiru airplanes that they
> also build and sell.
> Being from Australia maybe you can answer
> one of my questions. Since you are in the "land
> down under" do you need an inverted airfoil to get
> your airplanes to fly? Inquiring minds want to
> know.
> Blue Skies,
> Buz
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com.
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 29/05/2007 1:01 PM
>
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
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: LSA compliant vs. not |
In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
flying@qdea.com writes:
Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have
met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original
certification*.
This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch prop or didn't meet
some other part of the definition, it is technically *never* eligible
to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.
You can read the rule here:
_http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html_
(http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html)
I think there is some bad word engineering here. "Since its original
certification" means it must be regestered and loged as Amateur-Built Light Sport
from the get-go. You cannot retro register an airplane to another catagory.
If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite Sport parameters it is no
longer light sport. It is still a legal airplane. But cannot be flown by
a Lite Sport pilot. Just changing the configuration back to the tested
Light Sport configuration would make it a light sport again.
If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook
notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off. If you add or subtrack
wheel
pants and fairings, that is not a major mod. A variable pitch prop can be
installed from the get-go, it simply cannot be in-flight adjusted from the
cockpit. Ground adjust is OK. If you get ramp checked, you should be ready
to
show how your current adjustment meets the pitch requirements for your Light
sport test data.
All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of course. My point is
that if words can be engineered in more than one way, then one can take
whatever stand you think you can defend. You can work it out with the Feds before
or try to work it out after. Permission is often more difficult than
forgiveness, particularly when the likelyhood of gettng caught is low.
Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you assemble. I
can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want. Or that it will only go 100 mph.
I can claim that my special MUD FLAPS on my wheels make it so. Because it
is EXPERIMENTAL flight, the latitude for changes to an airplane is huge. The
only real absolute for Light Sport is Registered Gross Weight. In my
opinion, it is about possiblites, not restrictions.
Doug Koenigsberg
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: LSA compliant vs. not |
In a message dated 5/30/2007 8:49:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Kayberg@aol.com writes:
In my opinion, it is about possiblites, not restrictions.
I vote for Doug to be the next head of the FAA.
Buz
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
In a message dated 5/30/2007 5:39:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lozhoffman@yahoo.com writes:
>From where we stand its you guys who must have to use
inverted airfoils.
HI Laurie,
Good to hear from you again. Just to be sure I understand, if I were to
fly from here to the "land down under", or you were to fly from there to
here, at some place between the two we would need to do a half roll? Does it
matter which way you roll. Does the coriolis effect come into play? Isn't
aerospace science and geography wonderful.
Blue Skies,
Buz
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: LSA compliant vs. not |
Hi Doug
I am registering my Light Sport as Expererimental only, not
amateur-built-light sport. I fly and have owned a lot of aircraft.
When I was able to pass my medical I could fly my experimental and
certified aircraft under either rule as long as they had always met
(weight, airspeed, etc) as light sport. Flying the same aircraft at
night or IFR I could only do that under a pvt or above with medical yet
the aircraft was still sport pilot authorized.
If I did a mod to the aircraft that exceeds any light sport limit such
as have the weight increased to 1400 pounds and FAA approved, then if I
was to remove the mod and return the weight to 1300 pounds and approved
by the FAA that aircraft can never be used for sport pilot again. These
limits are only the ones put out by the FAA that are applied to the
airfrane speed, weight, ect. to make it meet light sport.This is a dumb
rule like failing a medical, no fly. No take medical, no fail, same
problem, you fly. I have an Ercoupe for sale that caught is under that
rule. On our lighting that is experimental I can fly it light sport
since I met the limitations but my wife can fly it FIR at night. If we
register it as light sport, amateur built it is restricted to fly only
under those rules according to what I have read and the local FAA
thinks. I do not think this is true but do not want to take a chance and
get stuck in only light sport operation by registering it light sport.
Our old J3, fly light sport, fly pvt at night. Hope this helps but as
of now, I don't trust anything the FAA says about medicals, light sport
and aircraft certification. Too many contradictions. Johnny
----- Original Message -----
From: Kayberg@aol.com
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: LSA compliant vs. not
In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
flying@qdea.com writes:
Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have
met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original
certification*.
This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch prop or didn't
meet
some other part of the definition, it is technically *never*
eligible
to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.
You can read the rule here:
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html
I think there is some bad word engineering here. "Since its original
certification" means it must be regestered and loged as Amateur-Built
Light Sport from the get-go. You cannot retro register an airplane to
another catagory. If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite
Sport parameters it is no longer light sport. It is still a legal
airplane. But cannot be flown by a Lite Sport pilot. Just changing
the configuration back to the tested Light Sport configuration would
make it a light sport again.
If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook
notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off. If you add or
subtrack wheel pants and fairings, that is not a major mod. A variable
pitch prop can be installed from the get-go, it simply cannot be
in-flight adjusted from the cockpit. Ground adjust is OK. If you get
ramp checked, you should be ready to show how your current adjustment
meets the pitch requirements for your Light sport test data.
All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of course. My
point is that if words can be engineered in more than one way, then one
can take whatever stand you think you can defend. You can work it out
with the Feds before or try to work it out after. Permission is often
more difficult than forgiveness, particularly when the likelyhood of
gettng caught is low.
Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you assemble.
I can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want. Or that it will only go
100 mph. I can claim that my special MUD FLAPS on my wheels make it so.
Because it is EXPERIMENTAL flight, the latitude for changes to an
airplane is huge. The only real absolute for Light Sport is Registered
Gross Weight. In my opinion, it is about possiblites, not
restrictions.
Doug Koenigsberg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
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: LSA compliant vs. not |
If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite Sport parameters
it is no longer light sport. It is still a legal airplane. But
cannot be flown by a Lite Sport pilot. Just changing the
configuration back to the tested Light Sport configuration would make
it a light sport again.
There is no "Amateur-Built Light Sport" category, there are only
Experimental Amateur-Built airplanes that meet the Light Sport
definition.
According to the rule, "just changing the configuration back to the
tested Light Sport configuration" does *not* make it a Light Sport
aircraft again, because it would not have met the definition of a
Light-Sport Aircraft since its original certification.
I don't care what anyone does with their aircraft, and in fact I
don't like the rule, but it's better to be well-informed on this
matter before the fact.
What I'd like to see is a driver's license medical for recreational
pilots. In that case, a standard Lightning can be flown without a
medical certificate.
Hugh Sontag
>In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>flying@qdea.com writes:
>
>
>Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have
>met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original
>certification*.
>
>This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch prop or didn't meet
>some other part of the definition, it is technically *never* eligible
>to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.
>
>You can read the rule here:
>
><http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html>http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html
>
>
>I think there is some bad word engineering here. "Since its
>original certification" means it must be regestered and loged as
>Amateur-Built Light Sport from the get-go. You cannot retro register
>an airplane to another catagory. If any mods are made to take the
>plane out of Lite Sport parameters it is no longer light sport. It
>is still a legal airplane. But cannot be flown by a Lite Sport
>pilot. Just changing the configuration back to the tested Light
>Sport configuration would make it a light sport again.
>
>If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook
>notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off. If you add
>or subtrack wheel pants and fairings, that is not a major mod. A
>variable pitch prop can be installed from the get-go, it simply
>cannot be in-flight adjusted from the cockpit. Ground adjust is
>OK. If you get ramp checked, you should be ready to show how your
>current adjustment meets the pitch requirements for your Light sport
>test data.
>
>All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of course. My
>point is that if words can be engineered in more than one way, then
>one can take whatever stand you think you can defend. You can work
>it out with the Feds before or try to work it out after.
>Permission is often more difficult than forgiveness, particularly
>when the likelyhood of gettng caught is low.
>
>Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you
>assemble. I can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want. Or that it
>will only go 100 mph. I can claim that my special MUD FLAPS on my
>wheels make it so. Because it is EXPERIMENTAL flight, the
>latitude for changes to an airplane is huge. The only real absolute
>for Light Sport is Registered Gross Weight. In my opinion, it is
>about possiblites, not restrictions.
>
>Doug Koenigsberg
>
>
>See what's free at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>AOL.com.
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
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: | Canopy seperation Discussion |
To Lightning Group........
There has been discussion of a canopy seperation in flight from a lightning.
After a short discussion with the australia dealer he has said that there are
no flying lightnings in australia for this to be a possiblity. The incident which
took place 2 years ago was on another type of aircraft with a smilar style
canopy. This post is only to inform of what is really the case. We have had many
phone calls and concerned customers relating to this discussion. Arion Aircraft
took great care in the design of the frame, latching systems, the adhesive
and manner in which the canopy is bonded. I would urge no one to fly the lightning
as an open cockpit type aircraft as we have not tested it and based on
this incident and other similar ones the aircraft flight capabilities would be
unknown.
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft
nick otterback <vettin74@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure can i will send today......thru info@flylightning i can send bigger photots
with that..
nick
Ernie Pritchard <ernie@epritchards.com> wrote:
Hello Nick,
Could you e-mail me some close up pictures of your TrueTrak pitch and roll
servo installation.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: nick otterback
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Aluminum Spinners For Lightning.
To Group:
Some may have gotten this e-mail already , but to let everybody know;
The Aluminum spinners from Cummins are about 2 weeks away from being ready.
They include spinner cone, back-plate, all hardware and are balanced.
They will be for sale for $425.00
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder
tool.
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
always stay connected to friends.
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: | sunglasses with LCD |
Hi Nick,
Yes, totally agree with your concerns regarding people somehow associating
the Lightning with the problematic canopy, hence why I immediately replied
to Peter's email a few days ago (see below).
However, looking back, whilst I sent it, it didn't appear on the Lightning
list ??
** Just to clarify to anyone who misunderstood, the canopy incident happened
on another type of aircraft, two years ago.. way before the Lightning was
flying and the owner is now building a Lightning.
I originally brought it up as a reply to Charles so that he would understand
the issues of what could happen if he 'attempted' to fly his Lightning
without a canopy.
Nick, hope it hasn't caused any major issues as obviously this was neither
mine nor Peter's intentions in any way in our reply to Charles.
Regards,
Steve
(future Lightning builder)
_____
From: steve [mailto:steve997@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: sunglasses with LCD
Hi Dennis,
Yes, I know :-)
I just didn't want (a) people to think it was a Lightning in any way and
(b) identify him given that I don't know ALL the exact details of what
actually happened .
Ps. Any update on your builders-assist ?
Regards,
Steve
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lightning
Aircraft Australia
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: sunglasses with LCD
Steve the person you are talking about is a Lightning owner.
Regards, Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: steve <mailto:steve997@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: sunglasses with LCD
Hi guys,
Just a note regarding Polarised sunglasses and LCD screens.
Quite often if you tilt your head from side to side whilst wearing polarized
sunglasses it will make the LCD screen come into view either better or worse
(try it on an LCD clock/radio display etc.)
Having said that, I did do a few hours last year behind a G1000 glass
cockpit and don't remember having any issues with not being able to see them
whilst wearing pol. sunglasses.
Oh, Charles.. not quite the same but there was an incident in Australia a
few years ago where a 'similar styled' canopy came off an aircraft in flight
(150kts) and I believe the turbulent airflow hitting the blocked off baggage
area put the aircraft into a spin. Thankfully, the pilot recovered and made
a forced landing. Not sure anyone would want to try flying it without a
canopy.
Regards,
Steve
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: LSA compliant vs. not |
In a message dated 5/30/2007 8:59:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
N1BZRich@aol.com writes:
In my opinion, it is about possiblites, not restrictions.
I vote for Doug to be the next head of the FAA.
Buz
Thanks for the Vote.
For the fun of it, Permit the following assertions, if you please.
1) Within the rules, there is usually latitude. Read loopholes. That is
why there are so many lawyers. They are being paid to find that latitude;
often because rules were bent beyond all recognition.
2) If you dont raise a stink, no one will dig in your feces. In my 4 years
running Sky Ranger Aircraft Company, I have only gotten one call from the
Feds. They wanted to know what the hell kind of airplane flew into Class B
airspace and landed on a taxiway without bothering to notice or talk to the
tower! They were simply searching for the proper implement to do some digging.
More than 100 Sky Rangers flying about the country had not attracted their
attention, so they didnt know what it was.
3) If the Feds want you, you are toast. Every flight we make has at least
one violation of the FAR's. Our real mission is to offer dis-incentives to
have it discovered. If you and your airplane look like you deserve to commit
aviation, you can probably get away with it.
4) If you are going to be spectacular, be sure you have your paperwork in
line. When asked if he had advice for his drug-selling clients, one lawyer
said, "If you are going to transport some quantity of drugs, be sure your tail
lights work and drive the speed limit!!!" I often see people try to show
off at fly-in's. How stupid it that? Most fly-in's have Feds in attendance
who dont WANT to work that hard. But they will if pressed. Do your low
flying and stupid stunts where they ARN'T!
5) Remember that when a Homebuilt airplane is inspected in the USA, it
doesnt have to be able to fly!! There are no flight charactoristic requirements.
Much attention will be paid to nuts, bolts, cable tension, threads showing,
control stops, brakes, tires etc. Paperwork will be required that does not
make sense. In my opinion, the least regulated part of Experimental aircraft
is the most important.... 1)a decent flying aircraft to start with 2) pilot
skills that match the aircraft capability. Europeans require extensive
flight testing of aircraft designs before they can be sold; done by real test
pilots. They worry less about a bolt being installed with the nut on top and
more about flight charactoristics.
6) I think it is important to consult with other pilots who HAVE knowlege
and a decent skill level. I am amaized by homebuilders who slap some peice of
crap together and then slam it into the trees because their control cables
are crossed. When they were offered some sage advice they neither considered
it nor considered the source. By definition, innovations are rarely
appreciated by all. But when you decide to do something new and different, at
least carefully consider the criticisms of the concept. Of course there are also
people to avoid at most airports. But we are all in this thing together.
I was in the mood for a bit of verbal divestment. Sorry.
doug koenigsberg
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: sunglasses with LCD |
It did come across somehow but that is not a problem i just wanted to make it clear
as to the event....no harm done...
Nick
steve <steve997@gmail.com> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Hi Nick,
Yes, totally agree with your concerns regarding people somehow associating the
Lightning with the problematic canopy, hence why I immediately replied to Peters
email a few days ago (see below).
However, looking back, whilst I sent it, it didnt appear on the Lightning list
??
** Just to clarify to anyone who misunderstood, the canopy incident happened
on another type of aircraft, two years ago.. way before the Lightning was flying
and the owner is now building a Lightning.
I originally brought it up as a reply to Charles so that he would understand
the issues of what could happen if he attempted to fly his Lightning without a
canopy.
Nick, hope it hasnt caused any major issues as obviously this was neither mine
nor Peters intentions in any way in our reply to Charles.
Regards,
Steve
(future Lightning builder)
---------------------------------
From: steve [mailto:steve997@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: sunglasses with LCD
Hi Dennis,
Yes, I know J
I just didnt want (a) people to think it was a Lightning in any way and (b)
identify him given that I dont know ALL the exact details of what actually happened
.
Ps. Any update on your builders-assist ?
Regards,
Steve
---------------------------------
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lightning Aircraft Australia
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: sunglasses with LCD
Steve the person you are talking about is a Lightning owner.
Regards, Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: steve
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: sunglasses with LCD
Hi guys,
Just a note regarding Polarised sunglasses and LCD screens.
Quite often if you tilt your head from side to side whilst wearing polarized
sunglasses it will make the LCD screen come into view either better or worse (try
it on an LCD clock/radio display etc.)
Having said that, I did do a few hours last year behind a G1000 glass cockpit
and dont remember having any issues with not being able to see them whilst wearing
pol. sunglasses.
Oh, Charles.. not quite the same but there was an incident in Australia a few
years ago where a similar styled canopy came off an aircraft in flight (150kts)
and I believe the turbulent airflow hitting the blocked off baggage area put
the aircraft into a spin. Thankfully, the pilot recovered and made a forced
landing. Not sure anyone would want to try flying it without a canopy.
Regards,
Steve
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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 |
|
Here's a couple of pics for all of you. This is Rick Bowen's plane. I had
somebody take a series of photos for me while in flight.
Pic 1. On takeoff, starting my turnout to the west. This is a light sport
compliant Lightning, and so no wheelpants or gear leg fairings. This is
about 2,000 feet down the runway or so. I kept it low to build up some
speed and get a good cruise climb going since I had 3,500' of runway left.
Pic 2. "Aborted Landing" It's hard to keep the RPM low with full power in
and in ground effect. I was carrying a little speed through here, and the
reduced drag of ground effect caused me to actually be faster than the plane
will go in normal cruise flight.
Pic 3. good rear quarter view of the plane as it passes. Time to go up!
Pic 4. Going up like a bat outta hell or a homesick angel, or whatever your
term is here. Whether in a zoom climb or a takeoff climb (I have a photo
sequence of both) this plane climbs very well. I can takeoff, make my
crosswind turn on a 5,500 foot long runway by the end of the runway and by
the time that I turn about a 1/4 mile-1/2 mile out downwind turn I'm at
pattern altitude. Great margin of safety in this as any problems would
likely end in a return to earth BACK ON THE RUNWAY! Nobody wants to get the
tractor to pull their plane out of the field!
Pic. 5 Almost out of view of both the ground and the plane. I'm the white
dot at the top center and the treeline can be seen at the bottom of the
photo.
Well, just thought that was a good sequence and thought I'd share. Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now.
Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
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 |
|
My oh my!
That sure is one GOOD LOOKING airplane...!
Sorry, sometimes I can't contain myself!
Rick
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
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 |
|
He is sneeky...if i knew he was doing that with your airplane before you got a
chance rick well i am not sure....i probably would have let him anyways....as
long as we got some good photos for the web!!!
nick
Rick Bowen <rollnloop@hotmail.com> wrote:
My oh my!
That sure is one GOOD LOOKING airplane...!
Sorry, sometimes I can't contain myself!
Rick
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
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: LSA compliant vs. not |
Thank you all for thoughtful responses to my original queston.
I have read and re-read your posts and refined the following:
The airplane will always be certified as an EAB.
If built , with a ground adjustable variable prop and VGs, and initially tested
and documented to meet LSA speed constraints, including the 1320 lbs gross weight
limit, it can then be legally flown by a Light Sport Pilot.
It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor pitch
can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long as it
does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally certified
with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light Sport Pilot.
No documentation is required, since none of the modifications are major.
Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor pitch readjusted
to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly it again.
I am not trying to abuse or contravene the regulations. I am interested in flying
legally and fast, initially as a Private Pilot and later a little slower, as
a Sport Pilot, without having to buy or build a new airplane.
I am sure that if carried on ad-infinitum, this thread would become very boring,
however, if anyone sees a fatal flaw in the above logic, I would really appreciate
hearing from you. Is this an interoretation that one could feel confident
in presenting to the FAA?
Also, I had one other question, which no-one responded to (must have been more
boring than this one :-), so I will ask again:
How late in the construction is it practical to make the decision on whether your
Ligtning will be LSA compliant or not?
I would think it would be just before you choose your propellor and needed to decide
to fit VGs rather than gear leg fairings and wheelpants. In other words,
right at the end.
Thanks for your tolerance!
Colin K.
OK
---- Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> wrote:
>
> If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite Sport parameters
> it is no longer light sport. It is still a legal airplane. But
> cannot be flown by a Lite Sport pilot. Just changing the
> configuration back to the tested Light Sport configuration would make
> it a light sport again.
>
> There is no "Amateur-Built Light Sport" category, there are only
> Experimental Amateur-Built airplanes that meet the Light Sport
> definition.
>
> According to the rule, "just changing the configuration back to the
> tested Light Sport configuration" does *not* make it a Light Sport
> aircraft again, because it would not have met the definition of a
> Light-Sport Aircraft since its original certification.
>
> I don't care what anyone does with their aircraft, and in fact I
> don't like the rule, but it's better to be well-informed on this
> matter before the fact.
>
> What I'd like to see is a driver's license medical for recreational
> pilots. In that case, a standard Lightning can be flown without a
> medical certificate.
>
> Hugh Sontag
>
> >In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >flying@qdea.com writes:
> >
> >
> >Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have
> >met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original
> >certification*.
> >
> >This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch prop or didn't meet
> >some other part of the definition, it is technically *never* eligible
> >to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.
> >
> >You can read the rule here:
> >
> ><http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html>http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html
> >
> >
> >I think there is some bad word engineering here. "Since its
> >original certification" means it must be regestered and loged as
> >Amateur-Built Light Sport from the get-go. You cannot retro register
> >an airplane to another catagory. If any mods are made to take the
> >plane out of Lite Sport parameters it is no longer light sport. It
> >is still a legal airplane. But cannot be flown by a Lite Sport
> >pilot. Just changing the configuration back to the tested Light
> >Sport configuration would make it a light sport again.
> >
> >If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook
> >notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off. If you add
> >or subtrack wheel pants and fairings, that is not a major mod. A
> >variable pitch prop can be installed from the get-go, it simply
> >cannot be in-flight adjusted from the cockpit. Ground adjust is
> >OK. If you get ramp checked, you should be ready to show how your
> >current adjustment meets the pitch requirements for your Light sport
> >test data.
> >
> >All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of course. My
> >point is that if words can be engineered in more than one way, then
> >one can take whatever stand you think you can defend. You can work
> >it out with the Feds before or try to work it out after.
> >Permission is often more difficult than forgiveness, particularly
> >when the likelyhood of gettng caught is low.
> >
> >Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you
> >assemble. I can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want. Or that it
> >will only go 100 mph. I can claim that my special MUD FLAPS on my
> >wheels make it so. Because it is EXPERIMENTAL flight, the
> >latitude for changes to an airplane is huge. The only real absolute
> >for Light Sport is Registered Gross Weight. In my opinion, it is
> >about possiblites, not restrictions.
> >
> >Doug Koenigsberg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >See what's free at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>AOL.com.
> >
> >
> ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: LSA compliant vs. not |
In a message dated 5/30/2007 10:42:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
cjk129@cox.net writes:
Is this an interoretation that one could feel confident in presenting to the
FAA?
NO. Colin, the part of your interpretation that I think is wrong and would
not fly with the FAA is:
It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor
pitch can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long
as it does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally
certified with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light
Sport Pilot. No documentation is required, since none of the modifications are
major.
Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor pitch
readjusted to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly it again.
My understanding (others may have different thoughts) is that any airframe
or propeller changes "should" be documented in the log books and the
experimental aircraft placed back into phase one testing until the changes are
proven
out. "IF" you do document these changes, you now have prevented the airplane
from flying in the future by a light sport pilot. Again, this is my
interpretation. I would suspect that some will make the changes that you mentioned,
but not document them. Now don't tell the FAA I said that.
And speaking of the FAA, some pilots think of the FAA just like a fire
hydrant thinks of a dog.
Anonymous
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 16
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: | LSA compliant vs. not |
<snip>
It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor pitch
can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long as it
does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally certified
with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light Sport Pilot.
No documentation is required, since none of the modifications are major.
Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor pitch readjusted
to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly it again.
<snip>
No, this is incorrect. The aircraft must stay LSA compliant at ALL TIMES.
>From EAA.org Sport Pilot web site:
Light-Sport Aircraft:
The FAA defines a light-sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter
or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet
the following: (goes on to define LSA to include stall speed and maximum speed
in level flight)
"Has continued to meet the following" is the key phrase. I'd be cautious if you're
using "no major modification was performed" as your basis for changing the
configuration of the airplane and the results just so happen allow the plane
go faster. Each MIDO (or FISDO - I always get them mixed up) has their interpretation
of the rules. I was present when our local Amateur Built - Designated
Airworthiness Representative (AB-DAR) was being observed/inspected performing
his duties by his boss at the MIDO. I was absolutely amazed at what some of his
(FAA MIDO guy) interpretations of "major modifications" were. How about placing
tape over a NACA scoop? Extreme interpretation? To me, yes. To him no, but
he's the one that can make your life miserable. Your MIDO's mileage may vary!
Sure, how does he (the FAA) know if you tested/certified the plane with the wheel
pants on or off or what pitch you had the prop set to but as Doug stated earlier
just be prepared to defend yourself if necessary.
I'm not trying to be the sport pilot Gestapo, this is just a question that we get
quite often, especially at air shows.
I hope this helps.
Mark
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! --
|