Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:18 AM - Re: Re: Prop bolts (flylightning)
2. 06:19 AM - Re: Prop bolts (flylightning)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: Prop bolts (flylightning)
4. 06:37 AM - Re: 51% Rule (flylightning)
5. 09:49 AM - : Lightning-List (IFLYSMODEL@aol.com)
6. 10:07 AM - Re: : Lightning-List (flylightning)
7. 10:27 AM - O-235 powered Lightning? (EAFerguson@aol.com)
8. 10:35 AM - Re: : Lightning-List (sttwig@wabroadband.com)
9. 11:10 AM - Re: : Lightning-List (flylightning)
10. 11:12 AM - Re: O-235 powered Lightning? (flylightning)
11. 11:30 AM - Re: Re: 51% Rule (Pete)
12. 12:49 PM - Re: O-235 powered Lightning? (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
13. 02:00 PM - Re: O-235 powered Lightning? (Brian Whittingham)
14. 06:16 PM - kitplanes (Tex Mantell)
15. 09:07 PM - Re: Prop bolts (John Eynon)
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 |
|
The prop guide bushings must be drilled out, we use a 3/8" bit and so does
the aluminum crush plate.
Nick Otterback
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jeynon
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:50 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Prop bolts
I just checked whether AN5 bolts would fit, and while they will go through
the propeller (looks like the propeller could even take AN6) the mounting
bushings and plate are drilled for AN4.
John
[quote="Wayne Lenox"]
Just finished with my Lightning. I think we used AN5 bolts. washers and
Nylock nuts. I did re- torque after 15 hrs. to 17 1/2 ft lbs.
Wayne
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195612#195612
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 |
|
Bolts with a lightning and wood sensensich prop should be AN6-45A nylocs
bellvills and std washers if needed.
Nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Lenox
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Prop bolts
Jeynon
Just finished with my Lightning. I think we used AN5 bolts. washers and
Nylock nuts. I did re- torque after 15 hrs. to 17 1/2 ft lbs.
Wayne
-- "jeynon" <jeynon2@verizon.net> wrote:
After the great response I received on the prop hub question, I thought I
would try again with the prop itself. I'm using a wood Sensenich wood prop.
To bolt the prop to the hub the Jabiru manual calls for AN4-46A bolts with
Belleville washers and nylock nuts. The Sensenich installation manual calls
for safety wiring the bolts.
So, here are my questions.
I don't seem to find Belleville washers at the online aircraft supply
stores. Are they called something else?
Should I get bolts with pre-drilled heads and safety wire them?
I would think there is no point to drilling and wiring the nuts, as they
could not be re-torqued without replacing everything.
Is there anything else I should keep in mind?
Thanks in advance.
John Eynon
Lightning kit #53
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.=====================================
==========================================================; -
MATRONICS WEB F================================================nbsp;
&===============================================
____________________________________________________________
No more waiting. Click now to experience the thrill of high
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3nAYymyZuFiDYTfwBWQAs5etU
toFTU6gcEggNPeIck8q6vqL/> speed Internet!
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 |
|
John,
We have prop bolts kits available if you would like one....
Nick Otterback
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jeynon
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:37 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: Prop bolts
After the great response I received on the prop hub question, I thought I
would try again with the prop itself. I'm using a wood Sensenich wood prop.
To bolt the prop to the hub the Jabiru manual calls for AN4-46A bolts with
Belleville washers and nylock nuts. The Sensenich installation manual calls
for safety wiring the bolts.
So, here are my questions.
I don't seem to find Belleville washers at the online aircraft supply
stores. Are they called something else?
Should I get bolts with pre-drilled heads and safety wire them?
I would think there is no point to drilling and wiring the nuts, as they
could not be re-torqued without replacing everything.
Is there anything else I should keep in mind?
Thanks in advance.
John Eynon
Lightning kit #53
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195559#195559
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 |
|
To Group,
Arion aircraft will post a longer more detailed read in the next news
letter, but here are a few thoughts. First the "approved" list is not a
prerequisite for and EAB inspection or certificate, it only makes the DARs
job easier in determining who did the major portion of the work. With this
in mind keep very detailed builders logs of what you are doing why and how
and you will not have a problem. This was discussed in length at several
forums at EAA (forgive me if I do not call it Airventure) and this was the
general consensus. There is nothing wrong with the current rule however
determining major portion and how to enforce it has loosened. This is the
focus and it was made clear that those building aircraft at home weather on
the list or not, if showing proof thru builders logs or photos and notes
would not have a problem showing that they did the work and would not have a
problem receiving there AWCs. The FAA has extended the comment period for
the proposed policy, This is key, it is a policy and not a rule, they do not
even have to show it to us if they want, but they are. So email
miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov with your comments. Please do not send screamers.
They will not listen to them and they made that very clear. When sending a
comment make it clear what you think is wrong and than propose how it could
be fixed or adjusted this is what they want to see. It is our privilege to
build these aircraft at home and it is our job to help the FAA understand
that and keep it alive.
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Sontag
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
like the Cirrus VK-30.
The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
percentage refers to.
It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
requirement.
Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
51% rule.
That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
many total hours.
Hugh Sontag
>Buz,
>
>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>
>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>
>
>Colin K.
>OK
>Lightning # 52 under construction.
><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>n5pb@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Buz,
>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
SYI!
>
>"Bear"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Tim,
> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>in several forums during the convention.
>Blue Skies,
>Buz Rich
>
>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>The FAA has released several
><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pub
s>draft
>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>
>
>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>
>
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>://forums.matronics.com
>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>======================
>============
>
>
>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
><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
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | : Lightning-List |
Hey Nick: I know it is none of my business, but did you have a good show and
sell lots of Lightnings? I hope you did. Do you have any idea when N13LN
might make its first flight?
Lynn
In a message dated 8/5/2008 9:37:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
info@flylightning.net writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "flylightning" <info@flylightning.net>
To Group,
Arion aircraft will post a longer more detailed read in the next news
letter, but here are a few thoughts. First the "approved" list is not a
prerequisite for and EAB inspection or certificate, it only makes the DARs
job easier in determining who did the major portion of the work. With this
in mind keep very detailed builders logs of what you are doing why and how
and you will not have a problem. This was discussed in length at several
forums at EAA (forgive me if I do not call it Airventure) and this was the
general consensus. There is nothing wrong with the current rule however
determining major portion and how to enforce it has loosened. This is the
focus and it was made clear that those building aircraft at home weather on
the list or not, if showing proof thru builders logs or photos and notes
would not have a problem showing that they did the work and would not have a
problem receiving there AWCs. The FAA has extended the comment period for
the proposed policy, This is key, it is a policy and not a rule, they do not
even have to show it to us if they want, but they are. So email
miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov with your comments. Please do not send screamers.
They will not listen to them and they made that very clear. When sending a
comment make it clear what you think is wrong and than propose how it could
be fixed or adjusted this is what they want to see. It is our privilege to
build these aircraft at home and it is our job to help the FAA understand
that and keep it alive.
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Sontag
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
like the Cirrus VK-30.
The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
percentage refers to.
It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
requirement.
Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
51% rule.
That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
many total hours.
Hugh Sontag
>Buz,
>
>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>
>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>
>
>Colin K.
>OK
>Lightning # 52 under construction.
><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>n5pb@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Buz,
>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
SYI!
>
>"Bear"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Tim,
> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>in several forums during the convention.
>Blue Skies,
>Buz Rich
>
>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>The FAA has released several
><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pub
s>draft
>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>
>
>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>
>
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>://forums.matronics.com
>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>======================
>============
>
>
>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
><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
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
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: | : Lightning-List |
Lynn,
The show was busy lots of interest. I sloshed the tank last week once and I
am going to do it again this afternoon, so 2 cotes. I will check for leaks
on Wednesday, if no leaks we will get it back together. I should be able to
fly next week. I would fly this week but I am leaving for Thursday and
Friday and wont be around to fly. The rest of the crew is gone today and
tomorrow so not much help here. They are coming back end of this week.
Nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
IFLYSMODEL@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:46 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: : Lightning-List
Hey Nick: I know it is none of my business, but did you have a good show and
sell lots of Lightnings? I hope you did. Do you have any idea when N13LN
might make its first flight?
Lynn
In a message dated 8/5/2008 9:37:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
info@flylightning.net writes:
To Group,
Arion aircraft will post a longer more detailed read in the next news
letter, but here are a few thoughts. First the "approved" list is not a
prerequisite for and EAB inspection or certificate, it only makes the DARs
job easier in determining who did the major portion of the work. With this
in mind keep very detailed builders logs of what you are doing why and how
and you will not have a problem. This was discussed in length at several
forums at EAA (forgive me if I do not call it Airventure) and this was the
general consensus. There is nothing wrong with the current rule however
determining major portion and how to enforce it has loosened. This is the
focus and it was made clear that those building aircraft at home weather on
the list or not, if showing proof thru builders logs or photos and notes
would not have a problem showing that they did the work and would not have a
problem receiving there AWCs. The FAA has extended the comment period for
the proposed policy, This is key, it is a policy and not a rule, they do not
even have to show it to us if they want, but they are. So email
miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov with your comments. Please do not send screamers.
They will not listen to them and they made that very clear. When sending a
comment make it clear what you think is wrong and than propose how it could
be fixed or adjusted this is what they want to see. It is our privilege to
build these aircraft at home and it is our job to help the FAA understand
that and keep it alive.
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Sontag
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
like the Cirrus VK-30.
The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
percentage refers to.
It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
requirement.
Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
51% rule.
That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
many total hours.
Hugh Sontag
>Buz,
>
>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>
>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>
>
>Colin K.
>OK
>Lightning # 52 under construction.
><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>n5pb@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Buz,
>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
SYI!
>
>"Bear"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>Tim,
> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>in several forums during the convention.
>Blue Skies,
>Buz Rich
>
>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>The FAA has released several
><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pub
s>draft
>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>
>
>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>
>
> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>://forums.matronics.com
>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>======================
>============
>
>
>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Lightning-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribue
the es y --> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS nbsp; - List
Contribution Web Site ; ========================
_____
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read
<http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000
017> reviews on AOL Autos.
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: | O-235 powered Lightning? |
My hanger neighbor came in Saturday PM from OSH with the news that he saw a
Lightning with a Lyc O-235 motor there. News to me! Is there anything to this
or was he just confused.
Why in the world would anybody want to do that???
Earl
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your
budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
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: | : Lightning-List |
Nick,
What is "sloshing the tank"? Is that something we all need to do or
something to deal with a leaky fuel tank?
Steve
Kit #48
> Lynn,
>
>
> The show was busy lots of interest. I sloshed the tank last week once and
> I
> am going to do it again this afternoon, so 2 cotes. I will check for leaks
> on Wednesday, if no leaks we will get it back together. I should be able
> to
> fly next week. I would fly this week but I am leaving for Thursday and
> Friday and wont be around to fly. The rest of the crew is gone today and
> tomorrow so not much help here. They are coming back end of this week.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> IFLYSMODEL@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Lightning-List: : Lightning-List
>
>
> Hey Nick: I know it is none of my business, but did you have a good show
> and
> sell lots of Lightnings? I hope you did. Do you have any idea when N13LN
> might make its first flight?
>
> Lynn
>
>
> In a message dated 8/5/2008 9:37:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> info@flylightning.net writes:
>
> <info@flylightning.net>
>
> To Group,
>
> Arion aircraft will post a longer more detailed read in the next news
> letter, but here are a few thoughts. First the "approved" list is not a
> prerequisite for and EAB inspection or certificate, it only makes the DARs
> job easier in determining who did the major portion of the work. With this
> in mind keep very detailed builders logs of what you are doing why and how
> and you will not have a problem. This was discussed in length at several
> forums at EAA (forgive me if I do not call it Airventure) and this was the
> general consensus. There is nothing wrong with the current rule however
> determining major portion and how to enforce it has loosened. This is the
> focus and it was made clear that those building aircraft at home weather
> on
> the list or not, if showing proof thru builders logs or photos and notes
> would not have a problem showing that they did the work and would not have
> a
> problem receiving there AWCs. The FAA has extended the comment period for
> the proposed policy, This is key, it is a policy and not a rule, they do
> not
> even have to show it to us if they want, but they are. So email
> miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov with your comments. Please do not send
> screamers.
> They will not listen to them and they made that very clear. When sending a
> comment make it clear what you think is wrong and than propose how it
> could
> be fixed or adjusted this is what they want to see. It is our privilege to
> build these aircraft at home and it is our job to help the FAA understand
> that and keep it alive.
>
>
> Nick Otterback
> Arion Aircraft, LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh
> Sontag
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:27 PM
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>
> I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
> FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
>
> I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
> were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
> like the Cirrus VK-30.
>
> The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
> percentage refers to.
>
> It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
> if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
> requirement.
>
> Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
> Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
> once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
> hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
>
> If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
> fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
> hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
> 51% rule.
>
> That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
> an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
> many total hours.
>
> Hugh Sontag
>
>>Buz,
>>
>>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>>
>>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>>
>>
>>Colin K.
>>OK
>>Lightning # 52 under construction.
>><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>n5pb@aol.com
>>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>>
>>Buz,
>>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
> SYI!
>>
>>"Bear"
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>>
>>Tim,
>> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>>in several forums during the convention.
>>Blue Skies,
>>Buz Rich
>>
>>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>>The FAA has released several
>><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pub
> s>draft
>>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
>><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>>
>>
>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>>://forums.matronics.com
>>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>======================
>>============
>>
>>
>>
>>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
>><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>>
>>
>>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matroni
> cs.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
>>
>><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com
> /Navigator?Lightning-List
>><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribue
> the es y --> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS nbsp; - List
> Contribution Web Site ; ========================
>
>
> _____
>
> Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read
> <http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000
> 017> reviews on AOL Autos.
>
>
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: | : Lightning-List |
Steve,
You shouldn't have to worry, lynns tanks is the first of 60 tanks that have
been flown to do this. Don't know why. The tank is sloshed with a sealant
before install, my only guess is something between than and install might
have caused a hole. This is to stop a leak using the same sealant as used
with the initial seal.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
sttwig@wabroadband.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: : Lightning-List
Nick,
What is "sloshing the tank"? Is that something we all need to do or
something to deal with a leaky fuel tank?
Steve
Kit #48
> Lynn,
>
>
> The show was busy lots of interest. I sloshed the tank last week once and
> I
> am going to do it again this afternoon, so 2 cotes. I will check for leaks
> on Wednesday, if no leaks we will get it back together. I should be able
> to
> fly next week. I would fly this week but I am leaving for Thursday and
> Friday and wont be around to fly. The rest of the crew is gone today and
> tomorrow so not much help here. They are coming back end of this week.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> IFLYSMODEL@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Lightning-List: : Lightning-List
>
>
> Hey Nick: I know it is none of my business, but did you have a good show
> and
> sell lots of Lightnings? I hope you did. Do you have any idea when N13LN
> might make its first flight?
>
> Lynn
>
>
> In a message dated 8/5/2008 9:37:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> info@flylightning.net writes:
>
> <info@flylightning.net>
>
> To Group,
>
> Arion aircraft will post a longer more detailed read in the next news
> letter, but here are a few thoughts. First the "approved" list is not a
> prerequisite for and EAB inspection or certificate, it only makes the DARs
> job easier in determining who did the major portion of the work. With this
> in mind keep very detailed builders logs of what you are doing why and how
> and you will not have a problem. This was discussed in length at several
> forums at EAA (forgive me if I do not call it Airventure) and this was the
> general consensus. There is nothing wrong with the current rule however
> determining major portion and how to enforce it has loosened. This is the
> focus and it was made clear that those building aircraft at home weather
> on
> the list or not, if showing proof thru builders logs or photos and notes
> would not have a problem showing that they did the work and would not have
> a
> problem receiving there AWCs. The FAA has extended the comment period for
> the proposed policy, This is key, it is a policy and not a rule, they do
> not
> even have to show it to us if they want, but they are. So email
> miguel.vasconcelos@faa.gov with your comments. Please do not send
> screamers.
> They will not listen to them and they made that very clear. When sending a
> comment make it clear what you think is wrong and than propose how it
> could
> be fixed or adjusted this is what they want to see. It is our privilege to
> build these aircraft at home and it is our job to help the FAA understand
> that and keep it alive.
>
>
> Nick Otterback
> Arion Aircraft, LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hugh
> Sontag
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:27 PM
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>
>
> I suspect "grandfathering" is more likely to apply to aircraft on the
> FAA's list, not to any kit currently being produces.
>
> I looked through that list, and I was surprised at how few aircraft
> were on it, and how many were aircraft that no one would build today,
> like the Cirrus VK-30.
>
> The part that I've always had trouble sorting out is what the
> percentage refers to.
>
> It could be that a tail is considered to be 30% of the aircraft, so
> if you "fabricated" the tail, you'd be done with the fabrication
> requirement.
>
> Is it percent of time, and if so, what time? A fuselage for a
> Lightning takes only a very few hours to "fabricate" at the factory
> once the molds have been built, so maybe it only contributes a few
> hours to the total "fabrication and assembly time" for the aircraft.
>
> If that's the case, the lower the total number of hours needed to
> fabricate and assemble the factory-supplied parts, the fewer the
> hours the amateur builder needs to put into the aircraft to meet the
> 51% rule.
>
> That may be the saving grace for the Lightning, in that the nature of
> an airplane built from composite molds is such that there aren't that
> many total hours.
>
> Hugh Sontag
>
>>Buz,
>>
>>I understand you have quoted the AOPA here, but are you getting the
>>impression that "Existing kit designs essentially would be
>>grandfathered" or that "Existing kit designs, already on the FAA's
>>51% list, essentially would be grandfathered"?
>>
>>In this case the difference could be critical because the Lightning
>>is not already on the FAA's 51% list.
>>
>>
>>Colin K.
>>OK
>>Lightning # 52 under construction.
>><http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken>http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>n5pb@aol.com
>>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:08 PM
>>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>>
>>Buz,
>>This is good to know, especially since I begin my build in September at
> SYI!
>>
>>"Bear"
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: N1BZRich@aol.com
>>To: lightning-list@matronics.com
>>Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:16 am
>>Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 51% Rule
>>
>>Tim,
>> From one retired AF fighter pilot to another - welcome aboard.
>>The answer to your 51% rule question is still a bit "up in the air"
>>but we should have a better understanding of the new FAA proposal
>>after Oshkosh (I am there now). But reading their proposal, I think
>>the Lightning should be OK. Below is a summary of what the AOPA has
>>to say about the new proposal. We will get the EAA's take
>>in several forums during the convention.
>>Blue Skies,
>>Buz Rich
>>
>>The FAA is scrutinizing "fast build" homebuilt aircraft programs and
>>with that may come policy changes that affect future kit designs.
>>The FAA has released several
>><http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pu
b
> s>draft
>>documents to clarify the regulation of the homebuilt aircraft
>>segment. The biggest potential change is to the definition of the
>>so-called 51-percent rule. The FAA s original intention was that the
>>individual would fabricate more than 50 percent and assemble more
>>than 50 percent of the aircraft.
>>The FAA became concerned when fast-build kits entered the market
>>where an aircraft owner's contribution resulted in 51 percent of the
>>assembly only. The agency felt that this did not meet the intent of
>>building "solely for their own education or recreation."
>>The FAA now defines 51 percent as the builder completing, at a
>>minimum, 20 percent of the assembly and 20 percent of the
>>fabrication with the remaining 11 percent made up from either
>>additional assembly or fabrication. The FAA now states that the
>>commercial assistance or "for hire" building programs will not count
>>toward 20 percent of the assembly by the individual.
>>The policy changes would not affect those flying traditionally
>>certified aircraft or already completed amateur-built aircraft.
>>Existing kit designs essentially would be grandfathered, while new
>>models, after the rules go into effect, would get the extra scrutiny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Get fantasy football with free live scoring.
>><http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>Sign
>>up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>>
>>
>> target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>>://forums.matronics.com
>>lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>======================
>>============
>>
>>
>>
>>The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.
>><http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>Get
>>the TMZ Toolbar Now!
>>
>>
>>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matron
i
> cs.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
>>
>><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.co
m
> /Navigator?Lightning-List
>><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribue
> the es y --> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS nbsp; - List
> Contribution Web Site ; ========================
>
>
> _____
>
> Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read
>
<http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000
> 017> reviews on AOL Autos.
>
>
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: | O-235 powered Lightning? |
News to me must have been an early Lancair..less motor more weight and money
.don't know why they would want to....0235 is currently 130hp for 250lbs and
20k oh and its old tech...check this week at EAA
Nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
EAFerguson@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:26 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: O-235 powered Lightning?
My hanger neighbor came in Saturday PM from OSH with the news that he saw a
Lightning with a Lyc O-235 motor there. News to me! Is there anything to
this or was he just confused.
Why in the world would anybody want to do that???
Earl
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews
on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000
017 )
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 |
|
The initial issue that caused the FAA to look at the Amateur built rule was
that some companies offering commercial assistance were way over the line.
There is a company that will complete a Glastar in two weeks. That is a
3500 hour build and there is no way that a builder can have enough input to
even come to a 10% involvement let alone 51%.
However, instead of shutting down the commercial operations the FAA has
focused on kit manufacturers and is trying to control the amount of
prefabrication in the kit. This approach will do nothing except encourage
more commercial assistance since there will be more to do to complete the
plane.
The message delivered in the two forums at OSH on the subject is that the
kits are not the problem but commercial assistance is and that the FAA
should focus on commercial assistance.
I believe the FAA people in attendance took that message to heart. As a
result of comments so far the FAA has extended the comment period until Sept
30. It is very important to make your voice heard by the FAA. I would
encourage everyone to comment on the proposal. I will be posting my
comments to the FAA on this list and I would hope that others will post here
as well.
Please be specific in your comments. Cite a paragraph from the proposal and
tell them if you agree or disagree and why. The offer an alternative
solution or approach.
Look for some additional info from Nick soon.
Pete Krotje
Arion Aircraft, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jhausch
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:01 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: 51% Rule
I shared these comments in the EAA tent at Osh yesterday, but I want to
repeat here for the comment of others:
It looks like the level of completion and lack of overall builder performed
glass/composite work on the Lightning might be a problem with the latest
interpretation of the 51% rule.
I would suggest, as an alternative to providing components of the kit in a
"less complete" format, that the FAA allow a builder to demonstrate
glass/composite construction skills on a part which does not become part of
the final aircraft.
I'd gladly build a small and simple mold; lay in gelcoat, glass, resin, etc;
remove and trim; attach a bracket; etc etc.
This would demonstrate to the FAA that I had the experience to work on this
glass kit, but it would not require me to have large molds to do so.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195758#195758
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: O-235 powered Lightning? |
There is a European design called a Falcon (saw it at Sun-N-Fun and at
Oshkosh) that has an 0-235 Lycoming and is kind of a Lightning look alike. They
say they save weight by building the fuselage and wings with kevlar. After
talking with Rick Disher about using kevlar, there would be no real weight
savings, but a real cost increase. Kevlar would be good to use if you wanted
an
airplane to take lots of abuse or gun shots. :-) However, Lycoming is
working on a light weight 0-235 derivative (maybe 0-230) that will be about 100
HP
to compete with the Continental 0-200. Champion wants to use it to save
weight on the new Champ.
Buz
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
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 |
|
| Subject: | O-235 powered Lightning? |
Before even reading I would have agreed with Nick=2C probably an early Lanc
air. There is a new LSA engine that might work: the Lycoming IO-233 that w
as debuted at Oskosh. This is based off of the 235=2C but it is 100hp=2C 2
00lb. engine. It is fuel injected with electronic ignition which is cool.
Again though you'd get less power and you'd have to make a special engine
mount. Not worth the trouble in my mind when the Jabiru is a great little
engine. Brian W.
From: info@flylightning.netTo: lightning-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: Lig
htning-List: O-235 powered Lightning?Date: Tue=2C 5 Aug 2008 13:10:06 -0500
News to me must have been an early Lancair=85.less motor more weight and mo
ney =85don=92t know why they would want to=85=85..0235 is currently 130hp f
or 250lbs and 20k oh and its old tech=85..check this week at EAA
Nick
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of EAFerguson@aol.comSent: Tuesday=2C Aug
ust 05=2C 2008 12:26 PMTo: Lightning-List@matronics.comSubject: Lightning-L
ist: O-235 powered Lightning?
My hanger neighbor came in Saturday PM from OSH with the news that he saw a
Lightning with a Lyc O-235 motor there. News to me! Is there anything to t
his or was he just confused.Why in the world would anybody want to do that?
??Earl**************Looking for a car that's sporty=2C fun and fits in your
budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/
expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 ) http://www.matronics.com/contr
ibution
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAG
LM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
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 |
|
Just finished reading the Magazine with Nick sitting in the left seat by
himself, which was strange. The article left me puzzled and confused. I
would be interested in others comments about the content and overal l
tone of the review of the Lightning. Tex
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 |
|
Nick,
Hope everything went well at Oshkosh. I wish I could have made it.
I would like you to send me a prop bolt kit. Do the prop bolts need
to be safety wired?
I received my replacement spinner (hope you got my old one back), but
I think it may be polished aluminum instead of chrome. It's a little
hard to tell without seeing both of them next to each other. Perhaps
you could let me know what your records indicate.
Thanks.
John Eynon
On Aug 5, 2008, at 8:17 AM, flylightning wrote:
> <info@flylightning.net>
>
> John,
>
> We have prop bolts kits available if you would like one....
>
> Nick Otterback
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jeynon
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: lightning-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Lightning-List: Prop bolts
>
>
> After the great response I received on the prop hub question, I
> thought I
> would try again with the prop itself. I'm using a wood Sensenich
> wood prop.
> To bolt the prop to the hub the Jabiru manual calls for AN4-46A
> bolts with
> Belleville washers and nylock nuts. The Sensenich installation
> manual calls
> for safety wiring the bolts.
>
> So, here are my questions.
>
> I don't seem to find Belleville washers at the online aircraft supply
> stores. Are they called something else?
>
> Should I get bolts with pre-drilled heads and safety wire them?
>
> I would think there is no point to drilling and wiring the nuts, as
> they
> could not be re-torqued without replacing everything.
>
> Is there anything else I should keep in mind?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> John Eynon
> Lightning kit #53
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195559#195559
>
>
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! --
|