Lightning-List Digest Archive

Wed 05/30/07


Total Messages Posted: 16



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
    Time: 02:37:40 AM PST US
    From: Laurie Hoffman <lozhoffman@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: EFIS
    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
    Time: 05:47:50 AM PST US
    From: Kayberg@aol.com
    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
    Time: 05:58:24 AM PST US
    From: N1BZRich@AOL.COM
    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
    Time: 06:06:41 AM PST US
    From: N1BZRich@AOL.COM
    Subject: Re: EFIS
    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
    Time: 07:30:59 AM PST US
    From: "Johnny Thompson" <testpilot@wildblue.net>
    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
    Time: 07:45:34 AM PST US
    From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com>
    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
    Time: 08:53:34 AM PST US
    From: nick otterback <vettin74@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 09:14:15 AM PST US
    From: "steve" <steve997@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 10:09:50 AM PST US
    From: Kayberg@AOL.COM
    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
    Time: 11:27:36 AM PST US
    From: nick otterback <vettin74@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 11:32:14 AM PST US
    From: "Brian Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Here's a couple
    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
    Time: 11:58:00 AM PST US
    From: "Rick Bowen" <rollnloop@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Here's a couple
    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
    Time: 04:13:08 PM PST US
    From: nick otterback <vettin74@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Here's a couple
    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
    Time: 07:41:08 PM PST US
    From: <cjk129@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 09:06:41 PM PST US
    From: N1BZRich@AOL.COM
    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
    Time: 09:12:50 PM PST US
    From: "Mark Stauffer" <mark.stauffer1@gmail.com>
    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

  • Post A New Message
  •   lightning-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Lightning-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/lightning-list
  • Browse Lightning-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/lightning-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --