---------------------------------------------------------- Lightning-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 08/10/09: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:45:39 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Lightning Newsletter for August 2009 From: "selwyn" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:35:26 AM PST US From: "flylightning" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:35 AM PST US From: "Jim Langley" Subject: Lightning-List: FW: Newsletters 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:06 AM PST US From: IFLYSMODEL@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:52:08 AM PST US From: "Dave" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:41:43 AM PST US From: "flylightning" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:52:48 AM PST US From: "Mark Stauffer" 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 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:12:52 AM PST US From: "flylightning" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:13:34 AM PST US From: "Bob Haas" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Wing Gap Tape 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 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" 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 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 < lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:58:26 AM PST US From: Hugh Sontag 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:56 PM PST US From: "Mark Stauffer" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:06 PM PST US From: "JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Another Lightning takes to the skies Tex, Congratulations! How about a picture of your bird? Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Stauffer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:43:09 PM PST US From: "Colin J. Kennedy" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:28 PM PST US Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Cover Lightning From: n5pb@AOL.COM Very cool Jim. It could easily grace the cover of any aircraft magazine... Bear -----Original Message----- From: Jim Langley 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:28:20 PM PST US From: N1BZRich@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:42 PM PST US 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:21:11 PM PST US From: Brian Whittingham Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message lightning-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Lightning-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/lightning-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/lightning-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.