Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:45 AM - Re: Lightning Newsletter for August 2009 (selwyn)
2. 06:35 AM - Re: more prop test info (flylightning)
3. 06:48 AM - FW: Newsletters (Jim Langley)
4. 07:06 AM - Re: FW: Newsletters (IFLYSMODEL@AOL.COM)
5. 08:52 AM - Re: more prop test info (Dave)
6. 09:41 AM - Re: more prop test info (flylightning)
7. 09:52 AM - Another Lightning takes to the skies (Mark Stauffer)
8. 10:12 AM - Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies (flylightning)
9. 10:13 AM - Re: Wing Gap Tape (Bob Haas)
10. 11:58 AM - Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies (Hugh Sontag)
11. 12:13 PM - Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies (Mark Stauffer)
12. 01:09 PM - Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies (JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS)
13. 04:43 PM - Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies (Colin J. Kennedy)
14. 06:11 PM - Re: Cover Lightning (n5pb@AOL.COM)
15. 07:28 PM - Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies (N1BZRich@aol.com)
16. 08:57 PM - Re: more prop test info (N1BZRich@aol.com)
17. 09:21 PM - Re: more prop test info (Brian Whittingham)
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: Lightning Newsletter for August 2009 |
FYI, I just tried the Arion site and there is a link for the August newsletter
but it is broken.
--------
Cheers, Selwyn
Kit 66
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=256889#256889
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: | more prop test info |
Dave,
Rejetting of the carb is almost always needed with a prop change, this
certainly explains the fuel flow numbers. To get the jetting correct for
that prop you will need, EGTs at WOT climp at say 100mph. and cruise EGTs at
2850RPM at say 5000 feet, let me know those numbers to get in the right
direction.
nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info
Buz
I put the 62FK60 on today. Don't know what to think just yet. Testing was
done at 3,000 ft, 85 degrees and indicated only
new prop-----------
RPM Fuel burn Speed mph
2850 8.1 152
2750 6.6 146
2650 5.7 140
WOT 3,000 rpm, static 2560 rpm at WOT the EGT was 1450 degrees
composite ground adjustable (old prop)
2850 6.1 145
2650 5.1 137
WOT 3200 RPM
I reached the 150 mph point but lost 2 gal per hr. Short story long--- what
are you running for jetting and I am thinking this may be an altitude
prop--not used for skud running? Nick or Buz, what jetting is needed?
Thanks for any advise
Dave McC
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: more prop test info
All,
Some time ago I sent out a report on the results of the prop testing I
have been doing on N31BZ with the Sensenich 62FK60. (remember BZ has the
older solid lifter engine) Those emails listed the true airspeeds vs. RPMs
that I was seeing. As a follow up to that message I have been doing some
additional testing the last several days to come up with some fuel flow
numbers with the new prop. Most of you that have been on the list for a
while know that my cross country technique is to set a fuel flow (not an
rpm) and accept the airspeed and rpm that the fuel flow gives me at the
altitude I am using for the trip. Since I am planning another trip to SYI
early this coming week, I figured I had better get at least some "ball park"
fuel usage numbers before I make this next trip.
On cross country flights I normally cruise at an altitude that does two
things for me - I am looking for lowest headwinds and smooth flight
conditions. If there is a tail wind, I go up high to take advantage of
that, often cruising as high as 14,500 when west bound (yes, I have a small
O2 bottle). Normally, I seem to end up in the altitude band between say 6
to 12 thousand feet, so that is where I have been doing most of the testing
the last few days. Oh, one other thing, the OATs have been running slightly
cooler than a standard day. For example density altitude has been about 300
below indicated altitude.
Below are the results I have seen during recent flights over the last
few days:
-Since I normally set 6 gph I did a lot of those test. As it turns out, 6
gph seems to give me in the neighborhood of 162 to 165 mph true airspeed
(weight makes a difference). I should also note that I tried to do most of
the test when I had the tanks full (except for that burned during climb out)
but with only me and approx 30 pounds in the baggage area (31BZ is probably
around a 1200 lb airplane with that load).
-However, I noticed something interesting (with the prop and set up I am now
using) when I pulled the fuel flow back below 6 gph. It appears that:
5.5 gph gives 155 mph,
5.0 gph = 150,
4.5 gph = 145,
4.0 gph = 140,
and 3.5 gph was right at 135 mph. I saw no reason to go slower than that.
If these numbers prove fairly accurate during actual cross country
flights, that works out to over a 1000 mile range flying at 135 mph tas -
but who wants to go that slow.
I just thought the kind of linear relationship of FF to MPH was
interesting. Of course, the time spend at the various fuel flows was just
long enough to let the mph settle down and things could be different when I
actually make the trip to SYI (probably this Tuesday).
Anyway, as normal, I will provide the data for that flight after I get
there and find the time to figure it all out more accurately.
Blue Skies,
Buz
_____
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner
<http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001> for $10 or
less.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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 |
|
Lynn
The newsletter in up on my site. It is your browser that is displaying the
old "cached" web pages. To all, if you are having this problem, then here
is a link to an article that tells you how to clear your cached web files.
Go to the site and save it in your favorites in your browser so if you have
the problem in the future, you can get back to it. Very few people remember
this kind of stuff because they don't use it every day.
http://www.clear-cache-cleaner.com/
There are instructions for clearing your cache, and changing your cache
settings, nice article.
In the meantime, here is a link that goes directly to the newsletter file.
http://www.jimslightning.com/Lightning_Newsletter_2-8.pdf
All the newsletters on my site
http://www.jimslightning.com/html/newsletters.html
All the newsletters on Arion's site
http://www.flylightning.net/Newsletters.htm
Email me if you are still having problems.
Jim!
From: IFLYSMODEL@aol.com [mailto:IFLYSMODEL@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:15 PM
Cc: pequeajim@gmail.com
Subject: Newsletters
Hey Buz: I am having the old trouble of not being able to get the latest
news letter. Some of the time, I can get the Arion site to list the August
news letter, but when I try to access it, I get a listing of news letter not
found. Every time I have tried to access it on Jim's site, the last letter
listed is July 2009.
I know this is some problem with my computer. I have deleted all the
stuff I know how, but have had no success. I also have shut it down and
reloaded every thing with the same results. I wish I knew more about what
is happening, but I'm afraid I do not. I have accessed both sites by using
the listing in your e-mail and by typing them in the search area. It seems
to make no difference. Do you have any idea as to how I can access the
latest news letter?
Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.
Lynn
_____
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: | Re: FW: Newsletters |
Hey Jim: Thanks for the information. I use the delete feature every time
I
close my browser. Unfortunately whatever version I have of AOL, the delete
function does not have a delete files as shown on the clear cache site. I
did read the newsletter on your site.
Thanks again.
Lynn
In a message dated 8/10/2009 9:49:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pequeajim@gmail.com writes:
Lynn
The newsletter in up on my site. It is your browser that is displaying th
e
old =9Ccached=9D web pages. To all, if you are having this
problem, then
here is a link to an article that tells you how to clear your cached web
files. Go to the site and save it in your favorites in your browser so
if you
have the problem in the future, you can get back to it. Very few people
remember this kind of stuff because they don=99t use it every day.
_http://www.clear-cache-cleaner.com/_ (http://www.clear-cache-cleaner.com/
)
There are instructions for clearing your cache, and changing your cache
settings, nice article.
In the meantime, here is a link that goes directly to the newsletter file
.
_http://www.jimslightning.com/Lightning_Newsletter_2-8.pdf_
(http://www.jimslightning.com/Lightning_Newsletter_2-8.pdf)
All the newsletters on my site
_http://www.jimslightning.com/html/newsletters.html_
(http://www.jimslightning.com/html/newsletters.html)
All the newsletters on Arion=99s site
_http://www.flylightning.net/Newsletters.htm_
(http://www.flylightning.net/Newsletters.htm)
Email me if you are still having problems.
Jim!
From: IFLYSMODEL@aol.com [mailto:IFLYSMODEL@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:15 PM
Cc: pequeajim@gmail.com
Subject: Newsletters
Hey Buz: I am having the old trouble of not being able to get the latest
news letter. Some of the time, I can get the Arion site to list the Augus
t
news letter, but when I try to access it, I get a listing of news letter
not
found. Every time I have tried to access it on Jim's site, the last lette
r
listed is July 2009.
I know this is some problem with my computer. I have deleted all the stuf
f
I know how, but have had no success. I also have shut it down and reloade
d
every thing with the same results. I wish I knew more about what is
happening, but I'm afraid I do not. I have accessed both sites by using th
e
listing in your e-mail and by typing them in the search area. It seems to
make
no difference. Do you have any idea as to how I can access the latest news
letter?
Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.
Lynn
____________________________________
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: more prop test info |
Hi Nick
I changed the main and needle jets right away. The exhaust is at 1280 at
climb which may be a bit low and also at 3,000 ft. at 2800 rpm.. I was
thinking, if I got Buz's static rpm this would tell me if my problem is
in the engine or drag in the Esqual. MY static was 2560 rpm. valves set
12 hrs ago, compression is great, gaps set. BUZ--
THANKS,, DAVE
----- Original Message -----
From: flylightning
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: more prop test info
Dave,
Rejetting of the carb is almost always needed with a prop change, this
certainly explains the fuel flow numbers. To get the jetting correct for
that prop you will need, EGTs at WOT climp at say 100mph. and cruise
EGTs at 2850RPM at say 5000 feet, let me know those numbers to get in
the right direction.
nick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:51 PM
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info
Buz
I put the 62FK60 on today. Don't know what to think just yet.
Testing was done at 3,000 ft, 85 degrees and indicated only
new prop-----------
RPM Fuel burn Speed mph
2850 8.1 152
2750 6.6 146
2650 5.7 140
WOT 3,000 rpm, static 2560 rpm at WOT the EGT was 1450 degrees
composite ground adjustable (old prop)
2850 6.1 145
2650 5.1 137
WOT 3200 RPM
I reached the 150 mph point but lost 2 gal per hr. Short story
long--- what are you running for jetting and I am thinking this may be
an altitude prop--not used for skud running? Nick or Buz, what jetting
is needed?
Thanks for any advise
Dave McC
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: more prop test info
All,
Some time ago I sent out a report on the results of the prop
testing I have been doing on N31BZ with the Sensenich 62FK60. (remember
BZ has the older solid lifter engine) Those emails listed the true
airspeeds vs. RPMs that I was seeing. As a follow up to that message I
have been doing some additional testing the last several days to come up
with some fuel flow numbers with the new prop. Most of you that have
been on the list for a while know that my cross country technique is to
set a fuel flow (not an rpm) and accept the airspeed and rpm that the
fuel flow gives me at the altitude I am using for the trip. Since I am
planning another trip to SYI early this coming week, I figured I had
better get at least some "ball park" fuel usage numbers before I make
this next trip.
On cross country flights I normally cruise at an altitude that
does two things for me - I am looking for lowest headwinds and smooth
flight conditions. If there is a tail wind, I go up high to take
advantage of that, often cruising as high as 14,500 when west bound
(yes, I have a small O2 bottle). Normally, I seem to end up in the
altitude band between say 6 to 12 thousand feet, so that is where I have
been doing most of the testing the last few days. Oh, one other thing,
the OATs have been running slightly cooler than a standard day. For
example density altitude has been about 300 below indicated altitude.
Below are the results I have seen during recent flights over the
last few days:
-Since I normally set 6 gph I did a lot of those test. As it turns
out, 6 gph seems to give me in the neighborhood of 162 to 165 mph true
airspeed (weight makes a difference). I should also note that I tried
to do most of the test when I had the tanks full (except for that burned
during climb out) but with only me and approx 30 pounds in the baggage
area (31BZ is probably around a 1200 lb airplane with that load).
-However, I noticed something interesting (with the prop and set up
I am now using) when I pulled the fuel flow back below 6 gph. It
appears that:
5.5 gph gives 155 mph,
5.0 gph = 150,
4.5 gph = 145,
4.0 gph = 140,
and 3.5 gph was right at 135 mph. I saw no reason to go slower than
that.
If these numbers prove fairly accurate during actual cross
country flights, that works out to over a 1000 mile range flying at 135
mph tas - but who wants to go that slow.
I just thought the kind of linear relationship of FF to MPH was
interesting. Of course, the time spend at the various fuel flows was
just long enough to let the mph settle down and things could be
different when I actually make the trip to SYI (probably this Tuesday).
Anyway, as normal, I will provide the data for that flight after
I get there and find the time to figure it all out more accurately.
Blue Skies,
Buz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h
ttp://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | more prop test info |
Dave,
The static is stationary correct? What is it after 3-5 seconds of Takeoff
roll, what does is settle too after accelerating down the runway?
Nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info
Hi Nick
I changed the main and needle jets right away. The exhaust is at 1280 at
climb which may be a bit low and also at 3,000 ft. at 2800 rpm.. I was
thinking, if I got Buz's static rpm this would tell me if my problem is in
the engine or drag in the Esqual. MY static was 2560 rpm. valves set 12 hrs
ago, compression is great, gaps set. BUZ--
THANKS,, DAVE
----- Original Message -----
From: flylightning <mailto:info@flylightning.net>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: more prop test info
Dave,
Rejetting of the carb is almost always needed with a prop change, this
certainly explains the fuel flow numbers. To get the jetting correct for
that prop you will need, EGTs at WOT climp at say 100mph. and cruise EGTs at
2850RPM at say 5000 feet, let me know those numbers to get in the right
direction.
nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info
Buz
I put the 62FK60 on today. Don't know what to think just yet. Testing was
done at 3,000 ft, 85 degrees and indicated only
new prop-----------
RPM Fuel burn Speed mph
2850 8.1 152
2750 6.6 146
2650 5.7 140
WOT 3,000 rpm, static 2560 rpm at WOT the EGT was 1450 degrees
composite ground adjustable (old prop)
2850 6.1 145
2650 5.1 137
WOT 3200 RPM
I reached the 150 mph point but lost 2 gal per hr. Short story long--- what
are you running for jetting and I am thinking this may be an altitude
prop--not used for skud running? Nick or Buz, what jetting is needed?
Thanks for any advise
Dave McC
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: more prop test info
All,
Some time ago I sent out a report on the results of the prop testing I
have been doing on N31BZ with the Sensenich 62FK60. (remember BZ has the
older solid lifter engine) Those emails listed the true airspeeds vs. RPMs
that I was seeing. As a follow up to that message I have been doing some
additional testing the last several days to come up with some fuel flow
numbers with the new prop. Most of you that have been on the list for a
while know that my cross country technique is to set a fuel flow (not an
rpm) and accept the airspeed and rpm that the fuel flow gives me at the
altitude I am using for the trip. Since I am planning another trip to SYI
early this coming week, I figured I had better get at least some "ball park"
fuel usage numbers before I make this next trip.
On cross country flights I normally cruise at an altitude that does two
things for me - I am looking for lowest headwinds and smooth flight
conditions. If there is a tail wind, I go up high to take advantage of
that, often cruising as high as 14,500 when west bound (yes, I have a small
O2 bottle). Normally, I seem to end up in the altitude band between say 6
to 12 thousand feet, so that is where I have been doing most of the testing
the last few days. Oh, one other thing, the OATs have been running slightly
cooler than a standard day. For example density altitude has been about 300
below indicated altitude.
Below are the results I have seen during recent flights over the last
few days:
-Since I normally set 6 gph I did a lot of those test. As it turns out, 6
gph seems to give me in the neighborhood of 162 to 165 mph true airspeed
(weight makes a difference). I should also note that I tried to do most of
the test when I had the tanks full (except for that burned during climb out)
but with only me and approx 30 pounds in the baggage area (31BZ is probably
around a 1200 lb airplane with that load).
-However, I noticed something interesting (with the prop and set up I am now
using) when I pulled the fuel flow back below 6 gph. It appears that:
5.5 gph gives 155 mph,
5.0 gph = 150,
4.5 gph = 145,
4.0 gph = 140,
and 3.5 gph was right at 135 mph. I saw no reason to go slower than that.
If these numbers prove fairly accurate during actual cross country
flights, that works out to over a 1000 mile range flying at 135 mph tas -
but who wants to go that slow.
I just thought the kind of linear relationship of FF to MPH was
interesting. Of course, the time spend at the various fuel flows was just
long enough to let the mph settle down and things could be different when I
actually make the trip to SYI (probably this Tuesday).
Anyway, as normal, I will provide the data for that flight after I get
there and find the time to figure it all out more accurately.
Blue Skies,
Buz
_____
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner
<http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001> for $10 or
less.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.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://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: | Another Lightning takes to the skies |
To all,
This past Thursday, 6 Aug 2009, Tex Mantell's Lightning flew for the first
time. Tex built kit number 9 at his home in NY and is the 44th one to fly.
We've delivered 78 kits so that makes our current completion rate 56%.
Congratulations Tex!!!
Mark
Mark Stauffer
Production Manager
Arion Aircraft
2842 Hwy 231 North
Shelbyville, TN 37160
(931) 680-1781
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: | Another Lightning takes to the skies |
Group,
Should be noted that tex's kit was the first delivered to a customer.
nick
_____________________________________________
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Stauffer
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: Another Lightning takes to the skies
To all,
This past Thursday, 6 Aug 2009, Tex Mantell's Lightning flew for the first
time. Tex built kit number 9 at his home in NY and is the 44th one to fly.
We've delivered 78 kits so that makes our current completion rate 56%.
Congratulations Tex!!!
Mark
Mark Stauffer
Production Manager
Arion Aircraft
2842 Hwy 231 North
Shelbyville, TN 37160
(931) 680-1781
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 |
|
I use a citrus product called "GOO Gone". Unfortunately I have
had to replace wing-fuselage tapes several times it seems to work
with out to much stress. Bob Haas N330BH.
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOSEPH
MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Wing Gap Tape
I tried Goo Gone the last time but it was still quite a bit of work.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hollis Babb <mailto:sailor@mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Wing Gap Tape
Try any of the "goo off" orange products to remove the residue or even WD 40
if you have nothing else.
Sent from my iPhone
Hollis Babb
256-506-2834
On Aug 9, 2009, at 11:53 AM, "JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS"
<lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
Thanks Charles; I have ordered a roll of the tape and will give it a try. I
also noted on the website that he recommends removing the tape residue with
lighter fluid vice MEK, acetone, etc. He says that lighter fluid protects
the gel coat better than any other fluid so I am going to switch to that
also. Others may benefit from that tip also when changing tapes.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Gallagher <mailto:crg326@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Wing Gap Tape
Joe&Linda,check out this link to the Glider supplies/UV protected gop seal
tape. Hope it proves helpful.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/bowlus.htm.
Order link follows the narrative.Rgs.,Charles Gallagher
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <
<mailto:lbmathias@verizon.net> lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
<http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/bowlus.htm>
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/bowlus.htm
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
- Release Date: 08/09/09 08:08:00
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
- Release Date: 08/09/09 08:08:00
08:08:00
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: | Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies |
Hi Mark,
It's truly remarkable that so many of the shipped Lightnings are
already flying.
I can't help but suggest another metric for your "percent complete".
It seems to me that it isn't reasonable to expect that a kit that
Arion has shipped should be flying as soon as it's received by the
customer.
So I'd add 6 or 12 months "grace period" to the ship date, and claim
a "percent flying" number based on this.
I wonder what the percentage rises to if you don't count the kits
that have shipped in the last 12 months.
Hugh Sontag
>To all,
>
>This past Thursday, 6 Aug 2009, Tex Mantell's Lightning flew for the first
>time. Tex built kit number 9 at his home in NY and is the 44th one to fly.
>
>We've delivered 78 kits so that makes our current completion rate 56%.
>
>Congratulations Tex!!!
>
>Mark
>
>Mark Stauffer
>Production Manager
>Arion Aircraft
>2842 Hwy 231 North
>Shelbyville, TN 37160
>(931) 680-1781
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 |
|
| Subject: | Another Lightning takes to the skies |
Using Hugh's suggestion of 12 month's "grace period" our completion rate
rises to 66%.
Another interesting statistic is that all of the flying Lightnings have been
completed by the original owners. The national average is somewhere around
25% and ours is 100%!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Hugh
Sontag
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Another Lightning takes to the skies
Hi Mark,
It's truly remarkable that so many of the shipped Lightnings are
already flying.
I can't help but suggest another metric for your "percent complete".
It seems to me that it isn't reasonable to expect that a kit that
Arion has shipped should be flying as soon as it's received by the
customer.
So I'd add 6 or 12 months "grace period" to the ship date, and claim
a "percent flying" number based on this.
I wonder what the percentage rises to if you don't count the kits
that have shipped in the last 12 months.
Hugh Sontag
>To all,
>
>This past Thursday, 6 Aug 2009, Tex Mantell's Lightning flew for the first
>time. Tex built kit number 9 at his home in NY and is the 44th one to fly.
>
>We've delivered 78 kits so that makes our current completion rate 56%.
>
>Congratulations Tex!!!
>
>Mark
>
>Mark Stauffer
>Production Manager
>Arion Aircraft
>2842 Hwy 231 North
>Shelbyville, TN 37160
>(931) 680-1781
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: Another Lightning takes to the skies |
Tex,
Congratulations! How about a picture of your bird?
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Stauffer" <mark@flylightning.net>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 12:52 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Another Lightning takes to the skies
> To all,
>
> This past Thursday, 6 Aug 2009, Tex Mantell's Lightning flew for the first
> time. Tex built kit number 9 at his home in NY and is the 44th one to fly.
>
> We've delivered 78 kits so that makes our current completion rate 56%.
>
> Congratulations Tex!!!
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Stauffer
> Production Manager
> Arion Aircraft
> 2842 Hwy 231 North
> Shelbyville, TN 37160
> (931) 680-1781
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:10:00
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: | Another Lightning takes to the skies |
Well done Tex!
Colin K.
OK
Lightning # 52 under construction.
http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:53 AM
> To: Lightning-List
> Subject: Lightning-List: Another Lightning takes to the skies
>
> To all,
>
> This past Thursday, 6 Aug 2009, Tex Mantell's Lightning flew for the
first
> time. Tex built kit number 9 at his home in NY and is the 44th one to
fly.
>
>
> We've delivered 78 kits so that makes our current completion rate 56%.
>
> Congratulations Tex!!!
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Stauffer
> Production Manager
> Arion Aircraft
> 2842 Hwy 231 North
> Shelbyville, TN 37160
> (931) 680-1781
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cover Lightning |
Very cool Jim. It could easily grace the cover of any aircraft magazine...
Bear
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 10:17 pm
Subject: Lightning-List: Cover Lightning
Hey, check out what made the cover of Aviator=99s Hotline!
=C2-
I think Jett is actually flying the airplane!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another Lightning takes to the skies |
Outstanding, Tex. You have built aircraft before, so now you have
experienced this great accomplishment once again. Great job. Also great seeing
you at OSH, but you disappeared before I got a chance to really talk to you.
Now that you are flying, enjoy the test time and plan on having your new
jet at SYI in September.
Buz
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: more prop test info |
In a message dated 8/10/2009 11:52:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
corky@hbci.com writes:
MY static was 2560 rpm. valves set 12 hrs ago, compression is great, gaps
set. BUZ--
Dave,
I have never seen the need to do a WOT static run up, but rather look
for the rpm on takeoff roll and perhaps more importantly, the rpm when
climbing out. For example, my rpm when climbing out at 100 mph indicated is
2760 to 2780. That is pretty near the power curve for the 3300. When near
max gross (which is 1320 for N31BZ) I have never seen a take off roll longer
than 700 to 800 feet even when at high density altitude and high
temperatures. For example the temp today when I started takeoff roll was 96
degrees. My gross weight was about 1200 pounds and my take off roll was right
at
600 feet. Yes, I am pretty near sea level but DA was over 2000'. Hope all
this helps.
One other thought - of all the Sensenich ground adjustable carbon
fiber props I have tried, I have never found one to be as smooth running at a
wooded Sensenich. I have even weighed the individual blades to make sure
they were the same weight. Also, I always set the pitch by using a prop
protractor on each blade instead of the index on the hub. That seemed to make
them run a little smoother, but still never as smooth as their wooded
props. The other thing about the ground adjustable, for some reason, even when
set at exactly the same pitch as a wooded ZK, they have never been as fast
at the higher rpms, and that has been most noticeable when above the 150
mph tas speed range. Not sure what was going on, but the wooded prop would
always be as much as 8 mph faster at the same rpm. And at WOT the carbon
fiber prop would never turn up as high an rpm. Remember they were both the
same pitch, same diameter and same ZK blade profile. Of course the prop I
am running now (and the one you are currently testing) is a FK blade
profile. The main difference as I understand it is the FK is a blended profile
with slightly different pitches at the tip, the mid blade and near the hub.
Tip is different for noise, mid blade for pull, and near the hub for more
cooling air into the intakes. Seems like a great idea to me.
Buz
Message 17
| 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: | more prop test info |
We've discussed similar topics to this a few times before=2C but when I fle
w the Lightning=2C I had the same experiences. Never could get as high RPM
at WOT with the ground adjustable. My thoughts are that you have a couple
of different things that are readily identifiable differences between the
props. (and the only two that I can think of off the top of my head) First
is the mass of the entire unit=2C hub and all. I think that cuts down on
the RPM at WOT. The other is your medium. Wood tends to flex more=2C espe
cially at the tips than the carbon fiber. Props are definitely not my spec
ialty though. We were always taught in school that prop design was about 1
/4 aerodynamics=2C 1/4 pure luck=2C 1/4 theory=2C and 1/4 black magic. Not
only is there a difference in pitch at various stations along the blade=2C
you'll notice a difference in a lot of the newer designs in having raked t
ips. This so called scimitar blade helps with noise as well as keeping the
blade more effective at higher tip speeds. Always interested in hearing p
rop info test data. Keep it coming folks. Brian W.
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info
In a message dated 8/10/2009 11:52:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C
corky@hbci.com writes:
MY static was 2560 rpm. valves set 12 hrs ago=2C compression
is great=2C gaps set. BUZ--
Dave=2C
I have never seen the need to do a WOT static run
up=2C but rather look for the rpm on takeoff roll and perhaps more importan
tly=2C
the rpm when climbing out. For example=2C my rpm when climbing out at 100
mph indicated is 2760 to 2780. That is pretty near the power curve for the
3300. When near max gross (which is 1320 for N31BZ) I have never seen
a take off roll longer than 700 to 800 feet even when at high density altit
ude
and high temperatures. For example the temp today when I started takeoff
roll was 96 degrees. My gross weight was about 1200 pounds and my take off
roll was right at 600 feet. Yes=2C I am pretty near sea level but DA was
over 2000'. Hope all this helps.
One other thought - of all the Sensenich ground
adjustable carbon fiber props I have tried=2C I have never found one to be
as
smooth running at a wooded Sensenich. I have even weighed the individual
blades to make sure they were the same weight. Also=2C I always set the
pitch by using a prop protractor on each blade instead of the index on the
hub. That seemed to make them run a little smoother=2C but still never as
smooth as their wooded props. The other thing about the ground adjustable
=2C
for some reason=2C even when set at exactly the same pitch as a wooded ZK
=2C they
have never been as fast at the higher rpms=2C and that has been most notice
able
when above the 150 mph tas speed range. Not sure what was going on=2C but
the wooded prop would always be as much as 8 mph faster at the same rpm.
And at WOT the carbon fiber prop would never turn up as high an rpm.
Remember they were both the same pitch=2C same diameter and same ZK blade
profile. Of course the prop I am running now (and the one you are
currently testing) is a FK blade profile. The main difference as I
understand it is the FK is a blended profile with slightly different pitche
s at
the tip=2C the mid blade and near the hub. Tip is different for noise=2C m
id
blade for pull=2C and near the hub for more cooling air into the intakes.
Seems like a great idea to me.
Buz
_________________________________________________________________
Get free photo software from Windows Live
http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:e
n-US:SI_PH_software:082009
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! --
|