Lightning-List Digest Archive

Tue 07/08/08


Total Messages Posted: 8



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 06:04 AM - Re: Re: BRS (flylightning)
     2. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: BRS ? (Hugh Sontag)
     3. 09:04 AM - Re: Re: BRS ? (Kayberg@aol.com)
     4. 09:37 AM - Re: Re: BRS ? (Hugh Sontag)
     5. 04:26 PM - Re: Propeller (Charles Dewey)
     6. 08:52 PM - Re: Propeller (Mark Stauffer)
     7. 09:35 PM - Re: Propeller (Charles Dewey)
     8. 10:43 PM - FW: BRS (Walt Mendenhall)
 
 
 


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: 06:04:09 AM PST US
    From: "flylightning" <info@flylightning.net>
    Subject: RE: BRS
    No the BRS would not have helped. Nick -----Original Message----- From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Dewey Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:55 PM Subject: Lightning-List: RE: BRS --> <cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Would a BRS chute have aided in AZ? --- On Mon, 7/7/08, Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com> > Subject: RE: Lightning-List: over filled oil sump > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 9:18 PM > Thanks Dick. > > > > Good real life lesson and good advice! > > > > From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick > Cleavinger > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:49 PM > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Subject: Lightning-List: over filled oil sump > > > > Hello Listers > > > > Those of you that have attended the Jabiru engine seminar will > remember that we were told never to overfill the oil sump. Take that > advice.!! > > > > On Sunday I flew from Cincinatti to Boulder CO. I had a great flight > with my new pitch trim system. But > > > > I have had an oil drip for the last few weeks and was trying to keep > close track of the level. The oil level is difficult to read, > especially after an oil change. > > on the Jabaru dip stick. At Hays KS I added too much. > Shortly after I took > off the oil temp went to 244deg. I backed off on the power as much as > possible and the oil tmp came down to 230 or so. I landed at the > first available field, Wakeene KS which seemed to be abanded on > Sunday. I remove the cowling and dumped what I estimate to > > be a pint of oil. I still couldn't get a good reading of oil level. > I put the cowling bakck on and took off. The oil temp promptly went > to 136deg and stayed there until the end > > of the flight in Boulder. The outside air temp was between > 85 and 90deg at > 6500ft and the engine was turning 2850 to 2900 during the flight. I > don't thind I damaged anything > > but it sure told me it didn't like that oil level. > > > > moral of the story: Believe Jabriu. Don't overfill your oil sump. > > > > Dick Cleavinger > > n213rc > > 19th lightning to fly


    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: 08:25:51 AM PST US
    From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com>
    Subject: RE: BRS ?
    Why would a BRS not have helped? Perhaps you could share your logic with us. A BRS is generally considered useful for un-landable terrain and loss of control, unless the altitude isn't enough (300 feet AGL is the anecdotal minimum height), or the airspeed is too high for deployment (around 150 MPH). Hugh Sontag > > No the BRS would not have helped. > >Nick > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles >Dewey >Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:55 PM >To: lightning-list@matronics.com >Subject: Lightning-List: RE: BRS > >--> <cdewey6969@yahoo.com> > >Would a BRS chute have aided in AZ? >


    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: 09:04:06 AM PST US
    From: Kayberg@aol.com
    Subject: Re: RE: BRS ?
    In a message dated 7/8/2008 11:26:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, flying@qdea.com writes: Why would a BRS not have helped? Perhaps you could share your logic with us. A BRS is generally considered useful for un-landable terrain and loss of control, unless the altitude isn't enough (300 feet AGL is the anecdotal minimum height), or the airspeed is too high for deployment (around 150 MPH). Hugh Sontag Hugh, I am just guessing, but I think you gave the answer. Nick knows more than he is at liberty to discuss....not to mention the feelings of friends. I would not suggest much of a detailed answer on this medium. Part of the issue is the incomplete nature of the facts and conclusions. Perhaps it is best to just take your answer..... too low or too fast. However, it could also be preocupation with trying to fly the plane. I cannot remember the name of the pilot and instructor, but the BRS equipted plane that ran into a building in New York City did not deploy either. They were too busy trying to make the turn. There have been a significant number of aircraft WITH some kind of recovery parachute that had fatal crashes anyway. BRS publishes the "saves" but not the "failure to deploy". My personal view is that the BRS makes your wife happier....but then the value drops off dramatically. While I am planning to install one in a hot single seat homebuilt I am redoing, I would not do one in a Lightning. In my opinion, a BRS is useful if you dont trust the airframe or if you simply have too high a stall speed and fly over rough terrain. Otherwise it is dead weight...with the exciting potential of accidental discharge! Doug Koenigsberg **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


    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: 09:37:17 AM PST US
    From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com>
    Subject: Re: RE: BRS ?
    There's no question that pilots tend not to deploy a BRS in circumstances where it may have been the best option. I can understand the reluctance, because it's very much a last resort, and we pilots are by nature optimistic and not inclined to lose hope. Hugh >In a message dated 7/8/2008 11:26:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >flying@qdea.com writes: > > >Why would a BRS not have helped? > >Perhaps you could share your logic with us. > >A BRS is generally considered useful for un-landable terrain and loss >of control, unless the altitude isn't enough (300 feet AGL is the >anecdotal minimum height), or the airspeed is too high for deployment >(around 150 MPH). > >Hugh Sontag > >Hugh, > >I am just guessing, but I think you gave the answer. > >Nick knows more than he is at liberty to discuss....not to mention >the feelings of friends. I would not suggest much of a detailed >answer on this medium. Part of the issue is the incomplete nature >of the facts and conclusions. > >Perhaps it is best to just take your answer..... too low or too >fast. However, it could also be preocupation with trying to fly >the plane. I cannot remember the name of the pilot and instructor, >but the BRS equipted plane that ran into a building in New York City >did not deploy either. They were too busy trying to make the turn. > >There have been a significant number of aircraft WITH some kind of >recovery parachute that had fatal crashes anyway. BRS publishes >the "saves" but not the "failure to deploy". > >My personal view is that the BRS makes your wife happier....but then >the value drops off dramatically. While I am planning to install >one in a hot single seat homebuilt I am redoing, I would not do one >in a Lightning. In my opinion, a BRS is useful if you dont trust >the airframe or if you simply have too high a stall speed and fly >over rough terrain. Otherwise it is dead weight...with the >exciting potential of accidental discharge! > >Doug Koenigsberg > > >Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient ><http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>used cars. > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution


    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: 04:26:31 PM PST US
    From: Charles Dewey <cdewey6969@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Propeller
    Can someone remind me of the differences b/w the wood prop and the compsoite prop. i am primarily interested in sshort field take-off and best prop for fastest cruise speeds. Thanks. --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> wrote: > From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> > Subject: Re: Lightning-List: RE: BRS ? > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 12:25 PM > <flying@qdea.com> > > There's no question that pilots tend not to deploy a > BRS in > circumstances where it may have been the best option. > > I can understand the reluctance, because it's very much > a last > resort, and we pilots are by nature optimistic and not > inclined to > lose hope. > > Hugh > > >In a message dated 7/8/2008 11:26:37 AM Eastern > Daylight Time, > >flying@qdea.com writes: > > > > > >Why would a BRS not have helped? > > > >Perhaps you could share your logic with us. > > > >A BRS is generally considered useful for un-landable > terrain and loss > >of control, unless the altitude isn't enough (300 > feet AGL is the > >anecdotal minimum height), or the airspeed is too high > for deployment > >(around 150 MPH). > > > >Hugh Sontag > > > >Hugh, > > > >I am just guessing, but I think you gave the answer. > > > >Nick knows more than he is at liberty to discuss....not > to mention > >the feelings of friends. I would not suggest much of a > detailed > >answer on this medium. Part of the issue is the > incomplete nature > >of the facts and conclusions. > > > >Perhaps it is best to just take your answer..... too > low or too > >fast. However, it could also be preocupation with > trying to fly > >the plane. I cannot remember the name of the pilot > and instructor, > >but the BRS equipted plane that ran into a building in > New York City > >did not deploy either. They were too busy trying to > make the turn. > > > >There have been a significant number of aircraft WITH > some kind of > >recovery parachute that had fatal crashes anyway. BRS > publishes > >the "saves" but not the "failure to > deploy". > > > >My personal view is that the BRS makes your wife > happier....but then > >the value drops off dramatically. While I am planning > to install > >one in a hot single seat homebuilt I am redoing, I > would not do one > >in a Lightning. In my opinion, a BRS is useful if you > dont trust > >the airframe or if you simply have too high a stall > speed and fly > >over rough terrain. Otherwise it is dead > weight...with the > >exciting potential of accidental discharge! > > > >Doug Koenigsberg > > > > > > > > > >Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for > fuel-efficient > ><http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>used > cars. > > > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List > ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:52:14 PM PST US
    From: "Mark Stauffer" <mark.stauffer1@gmail.com>
    Subject: Propeller
    The wood prop is fixed pitch. The Carbon fiber prop is ground adjustable. Which do you want, short field/climb performance or best cruise? Very seldom do you get both out of the same prop, there is usually a compromise somewhere. -----Original Message----- From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Dewey Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:24 PM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Propeller Can someone remind me of the differences b/w the wood prop and the compsoite prop. i am primarily interested in sshort field take-off and best prop for fastest cruise speeds. Thanks. --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> wrote: > From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> > Subject: Re: Lightning-List: RE: BRS ? > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 12:25 PM > <flying@qdea.com> > > There's no question that pilots tend not to deploy a > BRS in > circumstances where it may have been the best option. > > I can understand the reluctance, because it's very much > a last > resort, and we pilots are by nature optimistic and not > inclined to > lose hope. > > Hugh > > >In a message dated 7/8/2008 11:26:37 AM Eastern > Daylight Time, > >flying@qdea.com writes: > > > > > >Why would a BRS not have helped? > > > >Perhaps you could share your logic with us. > > > >A BRS is generally considered useful for un-landable > terrain and loss > >of control, unless the altitude isn't enough (300 > feet AGL is the > >anecdotal minimum height), or the airspeed is too high > for deployment > >(around 150 MPH). > > > >Hugh Sontag > > > >Hugh, > > > >I am just guessing, but I think you gave the answer. > > > >Nick knows more than he is at liberty to discuss....not > to mention > >the feelings of friends. I would not suggest much of a > detailed > >answer on this medium. Part of the issue is the > incomplete nature > >of the facts and conclusions. > > > >Perhaps it is best to just take your answer..... too > low or too > >fast. However, it could also be preocupation with > trying to fly > >the plane. I cannot remember the name of the pilot > and instructor, > >but the BRS equipted plane that ran into a building in > New York City > >did not deploy either. They were too busy trying to > make the turn. > > > >There have been a significant number of aircraft WITH > some kind of > >recovery parachute that had fatal crashes anyway. BRS > publishes > >the "saves" but not the "failure to > deploy". > > > >My personal view is that the BRS makes your wife > happier....but then > >the value drops off dramatically. While I am planning > to install > >one in a hot single seat homebuilt I am redoing, I > would not do one > >in a Lightning. In my opinion, a BRS is useful if you > dont trust > >the airframe or if you simply have too high a stall > speed and fly > >over rough terrain. Otherwise it is dead > weight...with the > >exciting potential of accidental discharge! > > > >Doug Koenigsberg > > > > > > > > > >Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for > fuel-efficient > ><http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>used > cars. > > > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com /Navigator?Lightning-List > ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contributio n > > > 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: 09:35:22 PM PST US
    From: Charles Dewey <cdewey6969@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Propeller
    Mark: Fastest cruise is my main concern. --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Mark Stauffer <mark.stauffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Mark Stauffer <mark.stauffer1@gmail.com> > Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Propeller > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 11:49 PM > Stauffer" <mark.stauffer1@gmail.com> > > The wood prop is fixed pitch. The Carbon fiber prop is > ground adjustable. > > Which do you want, short field/climb performance or best > cruise? Very seldom > do you get both out of the same prop, there is usually a > compromise > somewhere. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Charles > Dewey > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:24 PM > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Propeller > > <cdewey6969@yahoo.com> > > Can someone remind me of the differences b/w the wood prop > and the compsoite > prop. i am primarily interested in sshort field take-off > and best prop for > fastest cruise speeds. Thanks. > > > --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> > wrote: > > > From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com> > > Subject: Re: Lightning-List: RE: BRS ? > > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > > Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 12:25 PM > > <flying@qdea.com> > > > > There's no question that pilots tend not to deploy > a > > BRS in > > circumstances where it may have been the best option. > > > > I can understand the reluctance, because it's very > much > > a last > > resort, and we pilots are by nature optimistic and not > > inclined to > > lose hope. > > > > Hugh > > > > >In a message dated 7/8/2008 11:26:37 AM Eastern > > Daylight Time, > > >flying@qdea.com writes: > > > > > > > > >Why would a BRS not have helped? > > > > > >Perhaps you could share your logic with us. > > > > > >A BRS is generally considered useful for > un-landable > > terrain and loss > > >of control, unless the altitude isn't enough > (300 > > feet AGL is the > > >anecdotal minimum height), or the airspeed is too > high > > for deployment > > >(around 150 MPH). > > > > > >Hugh Sontag > > > > > >Hugh, > > > > > >I am just guessing, but I think you gave the > answer. > > > > > >Nick knows more than he is at liberty to > discuss....not > > to mention > > >the feelings of friends. I would not suggest much > of a > > detailed > > >answer on this medium. Part of the issue is the > > incomplete nature > > >of the facts and conclusions. > > > > > >Perhaps it is best to just take your answer..... > too > > low or too > > >fast. However, it could also be preocupation > with > > trying to fly > > >the plane. I cannot remember the name of the > pilot > > and instructor, > > >but the BRS equipted plane that ran into a > building in > > New York City > > >did not deploy either. They were too busy trying > to > > make the turn. > > > > > >There have been a significant number of aircraft > WITH > > some kind of > > >recovery parachute that had fatal crashes anyway. > BRS > > publishes > > >the "saves" but not the "failure to > > deploy". > > > > > >My personal view is that the BRS makes your wife > > happier....but then > > >the value drops off dramatically. While I am > planning > > to install > > >one in a hot single seat homebuilt I am redoing, > I > > would not do one > > >in a Lightning. In my opinion, a BRS is useful > if you > > dont trust > > >the airframe or if you simply have too high a > stall > > speed and fly > > >over rough terrain. Otherwise it is dead > > weight...with the > > >exciting potential of accidental discharge! > > > > > >Doug Koenigsberg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for > > fuel-efficient > > > ><http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007>used > > cars. > > > > > > > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com > /Navigator?Lightning-List > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contributio > n > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List


    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: 10:43:07 PM PST US
    From: "Walt Mendenhall" <mendw@onlinemac.com>
    Subject: FW: BRS
    -----Original Message----- From: Walt Mendenhall [mailto:mendw@onlinemac.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:37 PM Subject: BRS I have kit # 62 with a BRS and think its still a good investment. I was a T-38 instructor in the Air Force and always wore a parachute, I was a highly trained pilot and flew the best built and maintained aircraft in the world, yet the military installed ejection seats in all high performance aircraft because the pilots life was more valuable than the plane. True, we could not ditch if we wanted too, but the idea of not taking advantage of modern technoloy like a BRS because you think your piloting skills in a good aircraft will always save your bacon is misguided. It might work 90% of the time, but situations develop that will either kill or seriously injure you no matter how good you think you are. That is when the BRS comes into play, I chose the lightning because I could put one in it--too me its worth its weight in gold--the day I really need it! There is an old saying---there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are very few old, bold pilots---take it for what its worth. Walt Mendenhall walt@mendenhallstudio.com




    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! --