Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:55 AM - FW: kitplanes (James, Clive R)
2. 05:23 AM - Re: FW: kitplanes (Kayberg@aol.com)
3. 05:40 AM - Re: kitplanes (Brian Whittingham)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: kitplanes (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
5. 08:18 AM - Re: FW: kitplanes (James, Clive R)
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 |
|
See below, feedback from Stan Hodgkins. As I said Stan tests and writes
for a number of periodicals and was good enough to do the initial
flights on my Esqual. Stan also flew the original Lightning, the RAF
English Electric one.....Hunters, Buccaneers. He also flew for Martin
Baker firing dummies out the back of a Meteor. He will fly the RV10 for
the LAA approval shortly. So, I figure he know's what he is talking
about!
Regards, Clive
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Hodgkins [mailto:stan.hodgkins39@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 08 August 2008 11:58
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: kitplanes
Hi Clive
Yes, I did read the article in Kit Planes and I thought it was quite
fairly done. The point he made about Nick listening and being open to
improvements was absolutely valid. Chuck Berthe is an extremely
experienced test pilot and is revered in the industry. Vans Aircraft in
particular have a very high regard for him. As far as the longitudinal
trim/control is concerned Chuck found much the same as we did, I
thought.
When test pilots try out a new machine, the owner/designer is obviously
keen to have a good report, but a conscientious test pilot is just going
to write the truth on what he finds. This is not the media pointing a
gun at the designer's head, just the tp pointing out any faults he finds
- that is the whole point of test flying. I have had this recently with
the *********** - I just told it as I found it. We are doing nobody any
favours by ignoring shortcomings, especially in regard
to handling qualities. In the past some pilots have heaped unearned
praise on aircraft, customers have bought them and been disappointed.
Many kit aircraft have, in the past, been sold before they were ready
for marketing. The early Kitfoxes were an example and there were many
landing accidents before they fixed it with the Mark 4.
As Bob Hoover said once - 'never fly the A model of anything!'
All the best
Stan
-----Original Message-----
From: James, Clive R [mailto:clive.james@uk.bp.com]
Sent: 08 August 2008 04:38
Subject: FW: Lightning-List: kitplanes
Hi Stan, did you get your kitplanes yet? Did you read the Lightning test
article? What are your thoughts to what the guy wrote?, see below and
attached.
Regards, Clive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Kayberg@aol.com
Sent: 07 August 2008 23:21
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: kitplanes
In a message dated 8/5/2008 9:17:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
wb2ssj@earthlink.net writes:
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
Buz has offered his more detailed discussion of the content of the
Kitplanes article, I want to offer a couple other ones.
1) The editors comments and the article tried to complement Nick, et al,
on their willingness to make changes to the design-----without
explaining that the magazine was in effect holding a loaded gun to
Nick's head. Had the cooperation not been there the negative and
error-filled story would likely have run.. or no story at all. While it
may not have bothered Nick that much, I consider it a breach of
journalism practice. In my day, the Media was never the story, it was
only to report it. And most of all, the media should never CAUSE the
story.
2) It would appear that the writer of the story was not really qualified
to write it. Oh, he holds degrees and has lots of experience as a Navy
pilot, etc. He just has very little experience with planes like the
Lightning. I have not flown for the Navy, the Army or even the Air
Force. I only hold Commercial, Instrument, Single and Multi tickets in
some 30 or so birds over some 40 years. I do not consider myself a
test pilot. But the Lightning Ryan and I first built flew just fine.
I agree there was some annoying features to the trim system. But who
the hell cares? It flys fast well, it lands very slow, it climbs like
a homesick angel, it is smooth and handles like an imported sports car.
That is the story, not some crap about the CG and the trim system. In
short, the writer missed the boat. By a lot. Did it improve the
Lightning by moving the CG forward a bit and having a trim tab like
other planes? Of course. But that should not have been the real focus.
3) What should scare the hell out of KitPlanes is the reaction of
others who would bring a new plane to market. About 3 years ago I
worked with Kitplanes to have the SkyRanger flown at Sun n Fun. That
writer was a seasoned professional and did a great job. He accurately
picked out the good and not so good features of a SkyRanger. I answered
his questions and he was reassuring. It was still nerve-wracking to
deal with media, but I was pleased with the outcome. He wrote a good,
honest report. At the time we were advertising significantly in the
magazine.
But NOW if I were a manufacturer I would not be very excited to hear
Kitplanes wanted to do a story about my new bird. This guy and the
editor missed the news point of the Lightning. What if they cant
understand the real features of my new design? Why would I want to
advertise with them? Am I to be the next designer to be badgered by
them?
I want to reread the article and plan to write a letter to the editor
that will better make the above points.
Tex, I think your being puzzled and confused is a reasonable response.
Doug Koenigsberg
________________________________
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=aolaut0005000
0000017> .
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
8/7/2008 8:49 PM
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 |
|
In a message dated 8/9/2008 6:55:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
clive.james@uk.bp.com writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "James, Clive R"
<clive.james@uk.bp.com>
See below, feedback from Stan Hodgkins. As I said Stan tests and writes
for a number of periodicals and was good enough to do the initial
flights on my Esqual. Stan also flew the original Lightning, the RAF
English Electric one.....Hunters, Buccaneers. He also flew for Martin
Baker firing dummies out the back of a Meteor. He will fly the RV10 for
the LAA approval shortly. So, I figure he know's what he is talking
about!
Regards, Clive
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Hodgkins [mailto:stan.hodgkins39@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 08 August 2008 11:58
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: kitplanes
Hi Clive
Yes, I did read the article in Kit Planes and I thought it was quite
fairly done. The point he made about Nick listening and being open to
improvements was absolutely valid. Chuck Berthe is an extremely
experienced test pilot and is revered in the industry. Vans Aircraft in
particular have a very high regard for him. As far as the longitudinal
trim/control is concerned Chuck found much the same as we did, I
thought.
When test pilots try out a new machine, the owner/designer is obviously
keen to have a good report, but a conscientious test pilot is just going
to write the truth on what he finds. This is not the media pointing a
gun at the designer's head, just the tp pointing out any faults he finds
- that is the whole point of test flying. I have had this recently with
the *********** - I just told it as I found it. We are doing nobody any
favours by ignoring shortcomings, especially in regard
to handling qualities. In the past some pilots have heaped unearned
praise on aircraft, customers have bought them and been disappointed.
Many kit aircraft have, in the past, been sold before they were ready
for marketing. The early Kitfoxes were an example and there were many
landing accidents before they fixed it with the Mark 4.
As Bob Hoover said once - 'never fly the A model of anything!'
All the best
Stan
-----Original Message-----
Pardon me for being a bit critical, Clive, but .....
As I read your post, it would seem that Stan Hodgkins has NOT flown a
Lightning, particularly the latest and greatest. It would seem he bases his
comments on flying an Esqual, which is NOT a Lightning. EVERYTHING is different,
(wing, tail surfaces, wing tips, fuselage). Worse yet, he bases his further
comments on his respect for Chuck Berthe. Yes, I am aware that Chuck has
the respect of Van's (or at least publicly) and has been flying a nose-heavy
Van's bird which he built. But an RV is not an Lightning. Vans makes no
bones about offering a design that can be aerobatic. It is also designed around
a heavy engine. Neither is true of a Lightning.
Kitplanes chose to feature the CHANGES that were supposedly made because the
Lightning didn't pass the Chuck Bertha test with flying colors. Some of us
assert that the changes were minor and would have happened anyway. I am
personally questioning how changing the trim system can suddenly make it a fine
airplane. I am saying I thought it flew just fine with the old annoying trim
system, so what is the big deal?
I agree that test pilots should tell the truth. But it should be with some
perspective. And they should listen to the comments of other highly
qualified pilots (Like Buz and Linda) who have no financial attachment to Arion
Lightning.
Further, the point of the article should have been about the LATEST model
available, SINCE THAT IS WHAT PURCHASORS WILL GET. It would seem silly to
discuss the Kitfox I and its problems when the production (if it is still being
produced) is up to about #8. Same for the Lightning.
My final point is that the Lighting is still being changed. When we picked
up the next two kits for our customers, Nick pointed out that the fuselages
have lost another 10 lbs or so! Since the early production the fuselage
alone has lost nearly 30 lbs! The latest ones only weigh about 108 lbs. By
changing the foam core used, they have lost weight and gained strength. The
tailfeathers have lost some weight also.
So I do agree that the later production of a model is usually better than
the "A" model. But as we see at the airshows, the "A" model of an F-22 Raptor
easily outflys the "Z" model of anything else in the sky!!
Doug Koenigsberg
**************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 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 |
|
"Since the early production the fuselage alone has lost nearly 30 lbs!"And
correct me if I'm wrong=2C but since the prototype in its original configur
ation has lost much more than that! Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Your PC=2C mobile phone=2C and online services work together like never bef
ore.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 8/9/2008 8:40:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
"Since the early production the fuselage alone has lost nearly 30 lbs!"
And correct me if I'm wrong, but since the prototype in its original
configuration has lost much more than that!
Brian W.
I think you are correct.
I dont remember the weight our first one, so I was trying to be a bit
conservative.
Doug
**************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 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 |
|
I think we're in the same place.
My question to Stan was what did he think about the article, the way it
was written and the content. I asked him as someone who does what Chuck
does and who has reasonable pedigree. He hasn't of course flown the
Lightning but was recently evaluating the stability of my Esqual so he
could comment to the LAA about it so has been digging around that area
of the flight characteristics of a similar aircraft (low wing sporty
single).
I thought an awful lot of column inches were spent explaining something
that was irrelevant, history, which is what I thought you were saying.
It was colour to support the conclusion of the later test but given it
was an opportunity to hear an independent view about the plane I, and I
suspect many other readers would have like to hear some more about the
Lightning itself. I hear a lot from you guys about the Lightning but you
have all had the lobotomy, I hope one day to buy my 'last plane' and
although I am getting to like the Esqual I don't think it is that
animal. Chuck's article could have given me more information though as
I've been reading up on stability ever since it was suggested the Esqual
didn't have any I was somewhat interested but not 5 pages interested.
The comment about the Kitfox was made because it got great write ups
here in the UK and lot were sold on the basis of those write ups. The
plane subsequently was involved in many ground incidents as the buyers
had a different plane than they expected. Stan is committed to telling
the truth, warts an all, in his reports as he's explained it doesn't do
anyone any favours (except maybe the manufacturers).
One thing I don't think we'll agree on is which Lightning is best
(whatever 'best' is), The Arion Lightning maybe a fine aircraft and no
doubt will continue to get better but the original Lightning is a
LEGEND. I hope to visit Thunder City one day and get the ride of my
life! http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0503.php
CJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Kayberg@aol.com
Sent: 09 August 2008 13:23
Subject: Re: FW: Lightning-List: kitplanes
In a message dated 8/9/2008 6:55:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
clive.james@uk.bp.com writes:
<clive.james@uk.bp.com>
See below, feedback from Stan Hodgkins. As I said Stan tests and
writes
for a number of periodicals and was good enough to do the
initial
flights on my Esqual. Stan also flew the original Lightning, the
RAF
English Electric one.....Hunters, Buccaneers. He also flew for
Martin
Baker firing dummies out the back of a Meteor. He will fly the
RV10 for
the LAA approval shortly. So, I figure he know's what he is
talking
about!
Regards, Clive
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Hodgkins [mailto:stan.hodgkins39@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 08 August 2008 11:58
To: James, Clive R
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: kitplanes
Hi Clive
Yes, I did read the article in Kit Planes and I thought it was
quite
fairly done. The point he made about Nick listening and being
open to
improvements was absolutely valid. Chuck Berthe is an extremely
experienced test pilot and is revered in the industry. Vans
Aircraft in
particular have a very high regard for him. As far as the
longitudinal
trim/control is concerned Chuck found much the same as we did, I
thought.
When test pilots try out a new machine, the owner/designer is
obviously
keen to have a good report, but a conscientious test pilot is
just going
to write the truth on what he finds. This is not the media
pointing a
gun at the designer's head, just the tp pointing out any faults
he finds
- that is the whole point of test flying. I have had this
recently with
the *********** - I just told it as I found it. We are doing
nobody any
favours by ignoring shortcomings, especially in regard
to handling qualities. In the past some pilots have heaped
unearned
praise on aircraft, customers have bought them and been
disappointed.
Many kit aircraft have, in the past, been sold before they were
ready
for marketing. The early Kitfoxes were an example and there
were many
landing accidents before they fixed it with the Mark 4.
As Bob Hoover said once - 'never fly the A model of anything!'
All the best
Stan
-----Original Message-----
Pardon me for being a bit critical, Clive, but .....
As I read your post, it would seem that Stan Hodgkins has NOT flown a
Lightning, particularly the latest and greatest. It would seem he bases
his comments on flying an Esqual, which is NOT a Lightning. EVERYTHING
is different, (wing, tail surfaces, wing tips, fuselage). Worse yet, he
bases his further comments on his respect for Chuck Berthe. Yes, I am
aware that Chuck has the respect of Van's (or at least publicly) and has
been flying a nose-heavy Van's bird which he built. But an RV is not
an Lightning. Vans makes no bones about offering a design that can be
aerobatic. It is also designed around a heavy engine. Neither is true
of a Lightning.
Kitplanes chose to feature the CHANGES that were supposedly made because
the Lightning didn't pass the Chuck Bertha test with flying colors.
Some of us assert that the changes were minor and would have happened
anyway. I am personally questioning how changing the trim system can
suddenly make it a fine airplane. I am saying I thought it flew just
fine with the old annoying trim system, so what is the big deal?
I agree that test pilots should tell the truth. But it should be with
some perspective. And they should listen to the comments of other
highly qualified pilots (Like Buz and Linda) who have no financial
attachment to Arion Lightning.
Further, the point of the article should have been about the LATEST
model available, SINCE THAT IS WHAT PURCHASORS WILL GET. It would seem
silly to discuss the Kitfox I and its problems when the production (if
it is still being produced) is up to about #8. Same for the Lightning.
My final point is that the Lighting is still being changed. When we
picked up the next two kits for our customers, Nick pointed out that the
fuselages have lost another 10 lbs or so! Since the early production
the fuselage alone has lost nearly 30 lbs! The latest ones only weigh
about 108 lbs. By changing the foam core used, they have lost weight and
gained strength. The tailfeathers have lost some weight also.
So I do agree that the later production of a model is usually better
than the "A" model. But as we see at the airshows, the "A" model of an
F-22 Raptor easily outflys the "Z" model of anything else in the sky!!
Doug Koenigsberg
________________________________
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=aolaut000500
0
0000017> .
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! --
|