Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:50 AM - Re: IVO first flight (selwyn)
2. 04:47 AM - Re: Re: IVO first flight (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
3. 06:56 AM - Re: Elevator Balance modification. (flylightning)
4. 07:04 AM - Re: Elevator Balance modification. (flylightning)
5. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: Elevator Balance modification. (flylightning)
6. 07:06 AM - Re: Elevator Balance modification. (flylightning)
7. 10:04 AM - Re: More info on amazing wing loss landing (Hugh Sontag)
8. 06:10 PM - Re: Elevator Balance modification. (selwyn)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: IVO first flight |
Puts a whole new meaning to the term "glass prop" doesn't it.
But seriously, a prop has to be able to withstand some serious shock and vibration
loadings in normal operation, more so on a direct drive engine such as the
Jab than on a reduction drive such as the Rotax. To design something to stand
up to these loads yet still disintegrate on a prop strike sufficiently easily
to avoid engine damage is an engineering challenge of a high order.
There have been enough instances of deciduous blades on composite props to indicate
that not everyone has even the first part of the requirement under control.
Personally I would prefer that part to be right and I'll accept responsibility
for keeping my prop away from hard things.
Don't get me wrong though, I would dearly love to have a variable pitch prop option
for my Lightning so I will be very interested in the results of this trial
and wishing everyone involved the best of luck.
jhausch wrote:
> "
> Not sure I agree. I would imagine the margins are acceptable when loaded as
designed.
>
> The Osprey has rotor/prop blades which are designed to "broomstraw" if one must
land with the nacelles in the horizontal position.
>
> The other idea which comes to mind is tempered glass. Very strong when loaded
as designed, very fragile when struck on edge.
:)
--------
Cheers, Selwyn
Kit 66
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214643#214643
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IVO first flight |
In a message dated 11/17/2008 3:51:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
selwyn@ellisworks.com.au writes:
But seriously, a prop has to be able to withstand some serious shock and
vibration loadings in normal operation, more so on a direct drive engine such
as
the Jab than on a reduction drive such as the Rotax. To design something to
stand up to these loads yet still disintegrate on a prop strike sufficiently
easily to avoid engine damage is an engineering challenge of a high order.
I dont think it was a part of the design criteria, just a byproduct.
The blades are very thin at the end. They need to be thin for the metal rod
inside them to be able to twist the blade. This also makes the prop have
lower inertia. Again, this is a very light prop. It flexes a lot.
I like the prop, but I remain a skeptic about the power pulses from the Jab
engine. True they are smaller than a 4 cyl Lycoming and at a different
frequency, but we just need to see how it lasts. I am aware of a failure on
the Vernier engine. That was a two-cyl 80 hp engine that was geared, but it
still wiped out a 3 blade IVO in about 10 hours. IVO did not recommend that
prop/engine combination. They are fine with the Jab 3300/IVO Magnum.
The incidence of prop strikes in Experimental Aircraft is high. If you have
a constant speed prop and a Lycoming engine on your Vans project, taxing
into a gopher hole can cost you $15,000 or more in just a second. Taxing a
Lightning with an IVO into the same hole could cost about $450. Something
to think about.
doug
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Elevator Balance modification. |
I would like to make one more comment I did not earlier.
Even with the balance removed it is still possible to rig back in the
sensitivity if you wish. Since we have already got the rigging set to make
it heavier with the mod in place it can be rigged out to get the pitch light
if you have the short wing..so what ever you like.
nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Whittingham
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Elevator Balance modification.
Nick,
Ah man, I liked being able to fly with one finger on top of the stick and
still be able to manuever. Seriously though I think this will be a good
thing for the general aviation community, especially those with low time or
more standard aircraft time. Good job and good thinking. Another example
of how Arion continues to make improvements to the product in order to make
the plane safer, easier, and more enjoyable to fly! Brian W.
_____
From: info@flylightning.net
Subject: Lightning-List: Elevator Balance modification.
To group,
We have just completed flight testing on a modification to the elevator
balance. With the development of the SLSA Lightning and the mission of the
aircraft changing slightly, a need to make a change to the pitch force
required was noted. With the standard wing the roll to pitch force was well
harmonized at maneuvering speed and below. With the addition of the long
wing tips the roll forces increased but the pitch stayed the same. This
resulted in a some what unbalanced feel on the stick. There are two options,
lighten the ailerons, or heavy up the pitch. While the first seems the
better to get a nice light stick, the over all the mission of the aircraft
with the long wing tip is going to be Light sport. So with this in mind and
the typical pilot than being a newer light sport pilot or those who have not
flown for a while due to a medical or other issue, the thought of making the
pitch heavier to harmonize the controls was the better option. We have
removed the aerodynamic balance from the elevator completely. The resulting
change has increased the stick pull required by a good amount. In our
2008demo the stick force required with the balance to accelerate 1g was
2.5lbs, this is measured with a digital scale on the stick in flight and not
a guess. With the balance removed the stick pull required in the same
situation was 4.75lbs. This with the longer wing now provides a good feel
between both roll and pitch, and I feel this is better for most pilots. An
additional side benefit is the elimination of the "soft" spot in the center
of pitch, anyone with enough time in a lightning has most likely noticed a
small spot in the middle 1" of throw on the stick were its kinda dead, so
that's gone. This is not to say with a short wing that the pitch would too
be heavy if one made the modification as well, I think that it would still
have good stick feel. I have updated the builders manual online to
incorporate this change, it is in section #19 on balance modification. Those
of you asking if the roll can be lighten up to match the light pitch feel
with the balances, well still working on that but should have a solution in
due time.
Thanks for reading my book.
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft, LLC
ww.matronics.com/contribution
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
ronics.com
_____
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and y19462413/direct/01/'
target='_new'>Click here
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 |
|
| Subject: | Elevator Balance modification. |
Just to let everyone know because I think I have scared everyone.the pitch
force being 4.75lbs per g is less than half of your normal Cessna. Cessnas
are not light but they aren't dump trucks either.
nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tex Mantell
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Elevator Balance modification.
Earl, My vote would be for lighter stick forces also. When flying more
precise movements and control are possible. Get in a J3 cub and you find out
what heavy is like. No thank you
----- Original Message -----
From: EAFerguson@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Elevator Balance modification.
In a message dated 11/14/2008 6:43:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
Nick,
I like the light control forces, and don't think they are a problem for low
time pilots.
_____
Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Balance modification. |
That is correct.
nick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jhausch
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Elevator Balance modification.
I have only a demo flight in the lightning, but if (when) I build my plan
was to figure out a a way to increase the forces in pitch - long wing tips
or not.
I think I know what the mod looks like - I assume the counterbalance horn
has gone from full length, to half-length, and now to no horn at all.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214344#214344
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: | Elevator Balance modification. |
Good read earl some ideas too. I am sending a set of standard tips to peter
Discher in Australia. Him and a friend are going to work out a set of
winglet equipped standard tips.something to watch I think.
Nick
Do the wrinkles help for LSA and slow you down? You now aerodynamic
breaking?
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
EAFerguson@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Elevator Balance modification.
In a message dated 11/14/2008 6:43:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
To group,
We have just completed flight testing on a modification to the elevator
balance. With the development of the SLSA Lightning and the mission of the
aircraft changing slightly, a need to make a change to the pitch force
required was noted. With the standard wing the roll to pitch force was well
harmonized at maneuvering speed and below. With the addition of the long
wing tips the roll forces increased but the pitch stayed the same. This
resulted in a some what unbalanced feel on the stick. There are two options,
lighten the ailerons, or heavy up the pitch. While the first seems the
better to get a nice light stick, the over all the mission of the aircraft
with the long wing tip is going to be Light sport. So with this in mind and
the typical pilot than being a newer light sport pilot or those who have not
flown for a while due to a medical or other issue, the thought of making the
pitch heavier to harmonize the controls was the better option. We have
removed the aerodynamic balance from the elevator completely. The resulting
change has increased the stick pull required by a good amount. In our
2008demo the stick force required with the balance to accelerate 1g was
2.5lbs, this is measured with a digital scale on the stick in flight and not
a guess. With the balance removed the stick pull required in the same
situation was 4.75lbs. This with the longer wing now provides a good feel
between both roll and pitch, and I feel this is better for most pilots. An
additional side benefit is the elimination of the "soft" spot in the center
of pitch, anyone with enough time in a lightning has most likely noticed a
small spot in the middle 1" of throw on the stick were its kinda dead, so
that's gone. This is not to say with a short wing that the pitch would too
be heavy if one made the modification as well, I think that it would still
have good stick feel. I have updated the builders manual online to
incorporate this change, it is in section #19 on balance modification. Those
of you asking if the roll can be lighten up to match the light pitch feel
with the balances, well still working on that but should have a solution in
due time.
Thanks for reading my book.
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft, LLC
Nick,
I like the light control forces, and don't think they are a problem for low
time pilots. Certainly not for wrinkles like me who have lost medicals.
So I have two other suggestions.
The obvious one (but a major mod) is to lengthen the main wing and move the
aileron out, then shorten the tip but include the winglet. This keeps the
same wing area, but provides a little more aileron control. A clean
solution, but a major re-tooling.
The other suggestion is less obvious, but easier. Reduce the wing tip length
keeping the winglets. To keep the Light Sport stall speed, use the VG's on
the outboard wing to provide better stall characteristics (the inner wing
will stall first). My guess is that VGs in front of the ailerons would be
all you would need.
The VG's they do reduce the stall speed and so do the winglets. The only
objection to the VGs in that configuration would be minor inconvenience when
washing the bird. The combination should work and keep the light roll
control force. I had to reduce stall speed by 2 knots from the clean wing on
mine for Light Sport, and the full wing VGs did exactly that. I've since
taken off the inner 4 on each side with no measurable change in stall speed,
but a slight improvement in stall warning. We could test this suggested mod
on my LS Lightning (hint, hint).
BTW, To me the increased roll control force is more of a distraction than
the lack of harmonizing (matching) the pitch and roll forces. I don't think
I will like the increased pitch effort. As you know, I kept some bungees on
my pitch control with the new trim tab. With the right amount of bungee the
stick balances nicely on the ground, and reduces required up trim in flight.
Soft spot in the center of pitch? Not a problem in my Lightning. Maybe I'm
numb, but I haven't noticed this effect in 250 hours. If it's there it
certainly isn't objectionable.
My 2c worth.
Earl Ferguson
_____
Get
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001> the
Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!
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: | Re: More info on amazing wing loss landing |
For what it's worth...
This . . . from former A-7 driver and Aggie Buddy, Smokey P.
C'mon, Smokey, next thing you'll tell me is there is no Santa Claus!
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J72y_qFV2oc>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J72y_qFV2oc
Hugh
>More info. I realize some of you are still very skeptical, but here
>apparently is a short interview with the pilot in the video. Yes,
>it could be "staged" as well, but I doubt that the sponsor would
>want that kind of "fake" advertising. You make your final decision,
>but "I believe".
>Buz
>
>http://www.jamesandersson.com/interview.html
>
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: | Re: Elevator Balance modification. |
Hi Nick,
Nothing like timing, I just finished my elevator mods on Sunday!
A couple of questions though:
- Could we have more information on the rigging changes?
- What effect does the balance change have on trim effectiveness? Given that the
thing was already marginal on nose up trim in landing config what is it like
with these changes?
info(at)flylightning.net wrote:
> I would like to make one more comment I did not earlier.
> Even with the balance removed it is still possible to rig back in the sensitivity
if you wish. Since we have already got the rigging set to make it heavier
with the mod in place it can be rigged out to get the pitch light if you have
the short wing.so what ever you like.
>
> nick
>
--------
Cheers, Selwyn
Kit 66
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=214809#214809
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! --
|