---------------------------------------------------------- Lightning-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 08/14/09: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:18 AM - Re: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson (James, Clive R) 2. 04:14 AM - Re: more prop test info (Dave) 3. 04:42 AM - Re: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson (Brian Whittingham) 4. 05:39 AM - Re: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson (EAFerguson@aol.com) 5. 08:47 AM - Re: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson (James, Clive R) 6. 01:11 PM - Re: more prop test info (Dave) 7. 01:42 PM - Re: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson (Johnny Thompson) 8. 03:48 PM - Actual diameter of main and nose tires (Bill Strahan) 9. 04:28 PM - Re: Actual diameter of main and nose tires (IFLYSMODEL@AOL.COM) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:18:31 AM PST US Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson From: "James, Clive R" Can't you just use the standard spreadsheet and take the engine weight off at the old station and put it back at the new one? I used this approach to see what the difference was with the new mount that Arion send me. Early indications was the engine would be just over an inch forward of it's old position so I used 30 mm If you take the two lines in yellow out you can see the resultant C of G move back. I was surprised how little the C of G moved with engine position movement. Or am I missing something? Regards, Clive -----Original Message----- From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Whittingham Sent: 14 August 2009 04:01 Subject: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson All, Can anybody tell me what the difference in C.G. between an aircraft with the shorter motor mount verses the longer motor mount is? Has any aircraft had one and then switched to the other? Johnny, You had a write up in a recent Lightning newsletter about Greg's version 2.0 Lightning. I had flown his first version previously. Do you know if he switched motor mounts to the longer, or is that entire C.G. movement due to the lighter fuselage than the original? I am working on a new article for the newsletter and these things would help me to figure a couple of things out. Thanks, Brian W. ________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:14:45 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info Buz perfect, I'll do mine every 6 inches and get it to you, it may be interesting Thanks Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: N1BZRich@aol.com To: lightning-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:14 PM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info Dave, I am on another trip (this time in NC on other business) and it will be several days or more before I get home and can get to that. But will be happy to do so. I will try to get the airplane as level as possible, then will start by measuring the top of the engine to see how level that is. Then measurements will be based on the prop being horizontal. Will that work? Buz ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:42:07 AM PST US From: Brian Whittingham Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson Clive=2C You're right=2C I can just do the math on to get the CG change b etween the long and short mounts. I do remember a post where Buzz said tha t the cg did not move a lot with the new mount. The other part is that I j ust didn't know whether or not Greg's plane had the newer mount. I had als o forgotten about the lead weights that he added. I could also do the math on this=2C but I'd need to know the weight and stations of the fuselage an d wings separately. That way I could "virtually" change out the old fusela ge with the new. Three inches of cg movement is huge=2C but remember when we're talking about so much extra weight throughout the fuselage and all of it aft of the cg=2C then it starts adding up quick. Thanks for the quick responses guys. Brian W. > Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson > Date: Fri=2C 14 Aug 2009 08:15:59 +0100 > From: clive.james@uk.bp.com > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > > Can't you just use the standard spreadsheet and take the engine weight > off at the old station and put it back at the new one? > > I used this approach to see what the difference was with the new mount > that Arion send me. Early indications was the engine would be just over > an inch forward of it's old position so I used 30 mm > > If you take the two lines in yellow out you can see the resultant C of G > move back. I was surprised how little the C of G moved with engine > position movement. > > Or am I missing something? > > Regards=2C Clive > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian > Whittingham > Sent: 14 August 2009 04:01 > To: lightning-list@matronics.com > Subject: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny > Thompson > > All=2C > Can anybody tell me what the difference in C.G. between an aircraft > with the shorter motor mount verses the longer motor mount is? Has any > aircraft had one and then switched to the other? > Johnny=2C > You had a write up in a recent Lightning newsletter about Greg's > version 2.0 Lightning. I had flown his first version previously. Do > you know if he switched motor mounts to the longer=2C or is that entire > C.G. movement due to the lighter fuselage than the original? I am > working on a new article for the newsletter and these things would help > me to figure a couple of things out. Thanks=2C Brian W. > > ________________________________ > > Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now. > BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1> _________________________________________________________________ Get your vacation photos on your phone! http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:36 AM PST US From: EAFerguson@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:19:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, clive.james@uk.bp.com writes: Can't you just use the standard spreadsheet and take the engine weight off at the old station and put it back at the new one? I used this approach to see what the difference was with the new mount that Arion send me. Early indications was the engine would be just over an inch forward of it's old position so I used 30 mm If you take the two lines in yellow out you can see the resultant C of G move back. I was surprised how little the C of G moved with engine position movement. Or am I missing something? Regards, Clive Don't forget to move the prop, spinner and any other accessories not included in the engine weight. Earl ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:47:56 AM PST US Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson From: "James, Clive R" That's a good point, WR Earl, these will be at a different station of course, further forward more effect. With such changes why aren't you re-weighing? CJ -----Original Message----- From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of EAFerguson@aol.com Sent: 14 August 2009 13:33 Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson In a message dated 8/14/2009 3:19:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, clive.james@uk.bp.com writes: Can't you just use the standard spreadsheet and take the engine weight off at the old station and put it back at the new one? I used this approach to see what the difference was with the new mount that Arion send me. Early indications was the engine would be just over an inch forward of it's old position so I used 30 mm If you take the two lines in yellow out you can see the resultant C of G move back. I was surprised how little the C of G moved with engine position movement. Or am I missing something? Regards, Clive Don't forget to move the prop, spinner and any other accessories not included in the engine weight. Earl ________________________________ ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 01:11:49 PM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info Buz Here is what I came up with prop hub at zero degrees Blade 1 Blade 2 6" in from tip 21 degrees ---- 21.25 degrees 12" in from tip 26 degrees ---- 26 degrees 18" in from tip 30.5 degrees ---- 31 degrees it is hard to get an accurate measurement at 18" because of the contour thanks Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave To: lightning-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:12 AM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info Buz perfect, I'll do mine every 6 inches and get it to you, it may be interesting Thanks Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: N1BZRich@aol.com To: lightning-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:14 PM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: more prop test info Dave, I am on another trip (this time in NC on other business) and it will be several days or more before I get home and can get to that. But will be happy to do so. I will try to get the airplane as level as possible, then will start by measuring the top of the engine to see how level that is. Then measurements will be based on the prop being horizontal. Will that work? Buz ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.mat ronics.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: 01:42:35 PM PST US From: "Johnny Thompson" <8wn@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson Brian Greg's CG moved forward 3.5" but remember his was the 2nd to fly and many, many changes have taken place. He had 1 pound of led in the rudder the glass was heaver in the rear so he had to put 13 pounds of lead on the very front of the engine case. Then removing the lead weight forward and aft,new fuselage, extended eng mount he now has moved the CG forward 3.5 inches. In the next two weeks I will do a new W&B on my aircraft. I have installed the 30 gallon tanks and will add weight to the front of the Eng to compensate for not having the extended mount. Will let you know. Johnny ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Whittingham To: lightning-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:00 PM Subject: Lightning-List: Lightning C.G. Change? + question for Johnny Thompson All, Can anybody tell me what the difference in C.G. between an aircraft with the shorter motor mount verses the longer motor mount is? Has any aircraft had one and then switched to the other?Johnny, You had a write up in a recent Lightning newsletter about Greg's version 2.0 Lightning. I had flown his first version previously. Do you know if he switched motor mounts to the longer, or is that entire C.G. movement due to the lighter fuselage than the original? I am working on a new article for the newsletter and these things would help me to figure a couple of things out. Thanks, Brian W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:48:15 PM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Actual diameter of main and nose tires From: "Bill Strahan" Can anyone tell me a source for the diameter of our tires? I've been searching for quite a while, and get numbers of 11" to 13.5" for a 5.00X5 aircraft tire. Thanks, Bill Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257710#257710 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 04:28:15 PM PST US From: IFLYSMODEL@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Actual diameter of main and nose tires Hey Bill: I can tell you that the Air Trac tires removed from my lightning currently measure 13 inches not installed or inflated. So I would assume that the 13.5" figure is quite close to actual. Lynn Nelsen N13LN In a message dated 8/14/2009 6:48:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bill@gdsx.com writes: --> Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan" Can anyone tell me a source for the diameter of our tires? I've been searching for quite a while, and get numbers of 11" to 13.5" for a 5.00X5 aircraft tire. Thanks, Bill Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257710#257710 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.