Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:31 AM - Re: Bailing out (Brian Whittingham)
2. 06:13 AM - Re: Bailing out (flylightning)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: Bailing out (Bill Strahan)
4. 09:01 AM - Re: Bailing out (Givan, Max E (AS))
5. 09:36 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Maxim Voronin)
6. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: Bailing out (N1BZRich@aol.com)
7. 08:35 PM - Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (N1BZRich@aol.com)
8. 08:54 PM - Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (N1BZRich@aol.com)
9. 10:29 PM - Re: Bailing out (Bill Strahan)
10. 10:29 PM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (Bill Strahan)
11. 10:42 PM - Autopilot (Bill Strahan)
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 |
|
I will look and see if I can find a video of this later=2C but I remember s
eeing a two camera view of an aerobatic aircraft demonstrating loss of SA d
uring a spin that went flat and then inverted. In the cockpit there was a
brief pause and it was nearly imperceptible when it transitioned to inverte
d. If you didn't know that you were then in an inverted spin and applied y
our normal anti-spin controls in the same direction as before then you are
tightening your spin.
Also something to think about is the force that a spin can put on your body
. Definitely wouldn't count on being able to kick out the canopy=2C much l
ess even being able to push it out. There are many stories of guys trying
to bail out of planes and the best they ever did was to wiggle around until
they could unbuckle and then they were thrown clear of the plane=2C someti
mes colliding with the plane on the way down and doing some bodily harm. I
had talked a little with Buz and Nick about designing a quick release cano
py. There is one that is used for air racing for the Lancair which makes t
he canopy a rear hinged variety. A few things bother me about this though.
I remember reading about I believe it was the F-86's that were loosing ca
nopies in flight. The way that they were loosing them turned out to be som
ebody installing screws upside down. This was allowing the canopy to come
off and twist which was making the pilots loose their heads=2C literally.
If I were going to design the canopy to fly free without taking my head off
I might do what some of the Russian ejection seats do=2C which deploy smal
l vanes and turn it in a favorable direction (up) and keep it tracking a st
raight line. Most people don't have the ability to thoroughly test somethi
ng like that on their own though.
Another thing that worries me is what will happen when the canopy is off.
We don't know what the Lightning would do. We do know what an Esqual will
do and it's not a good thing. If you're then in a spin and need to clear i
t=2C does it increase the loading and tightening of the spin? It could be
that you find yourself incapacitated. I believe the ultimate limit load fa
ctor for the Lightning was around 10G's. Now this isn't the operational li
mit load factor=2C I'm talking about the observed failure load factor. I'm
willing to bet that most people can't take about half of that for very lon
g without becoming incapacitated in some way. If you look at any books on
flight testing they will tell you that spin testing must be approached very
carefully as there's a higher than normal chance of loosing your aircraft
and possibly loosing your life. Just a few of my own thoughts. Brian W.
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Bailing out
Bill=2C
Last spring (late March and early
April) I flew all the ASTM required flight test profiles (including all the
spin test) to get the Lightning certified as a SLSA. The spin test flights
were all flown in the prototype Lightning since it had a ballistic parachut
e
installed. The other flights were flown in the silver demo
Lightning. Nick and I had many long discussions about bailing out of the
Lightning and ways to jettison the canopy. We basically decided that in an
out of control situation=2C trying to force the canopy open and climbing ou
t while
the aircraft was spinning was not a real good option. (Flat spins can be
amazingly fast) Nick even tried to get some explosive bolts so that we coul
d
jettison the canopy=2C but the regulations required to even buy the explosi
ve
bolts made that option unworkable in a reasonable time frame. So that is
why I flew the spin test in the prototype. If things went wrong=2C I would
use the whole aircraft ballistic chute. Didn't even wear the chute I owned
for the Pitts=2C So your idea of having pins to pull that would allow you
to
get rid of the canopy might be a good option
if you can work it out. We didn't really work on that
option because of the ballistic chute option we had. Note: If you
make this type of change to your Lightning=2C you will have to put it back
into
phase one testing and who knows how many hours your FAA rep might require.
Up to this past March/April=2C this was the first time the long wing
Lightning had been spun. Nick had previously spun the original short wing
with no problems=2C but not the long wing. ASTM requirements were for the
light sport compliant airplane to be spun at all CG ranges and all
configurations. From lots of previous flights in many different
Lightnings with the long wing=2C I was not really concerned with possible s
piral
instability=2C but the requirement to spin at full flaps did concern me qui
te a
bit since from lots of previous spin experience in the military and in nume
rous
aerobatic aircraft=2C I knew that flaps would tend to make the spin go flat
.
One other thing - ASTM requirements were not for a fully developed spin - y
ou
could apply anti spin controls during the incipient phase of the developing
spin=2C or to be more specific=2C the rules allowed me to apply anti spin c
ontrols
at either 3 seconds of spin or 1 turn - whichever came first. And that is
exactly what I did=2C particularly for the first spins at full aft CG and
certainly with the flaps down. It recovered=2C but not at quickly as the
normal clean spin situation.
I have a copy of all the written flight test results somewhere on my
computer and will look for the spin test flights and (with Nick's
permission) will post a copy of the spin test on the list=2C or maybe in
the newsletter. (What say you=2C Nick?)
Basically=2C the clean spin characteristics were excellent
for forward CGs and good for aft CGs and recovery was almost immediate as
soon as I unloaded the airplane. Clean and aft CG were not quite as quick
to stop=2C but not abnormal at all. Spins with flaps were much more a
concern=2C but standard anti spin controls were effective=2C but took some
time. Don't try spins with flaps.
So if you are going to spin=2C AND I SEE NO REASON TO DO THAT - THE
LIGHTNING FLIGHT MANUAL SAYS NO AEROBATICS AND NO INTENTIONAL SPINS=2C
but if you really must (will your insurance be valid if you are doing somet
hing
not approved in the POH?) only do so with no flaps deployed and a forward
CG. Use idle power and normal pro spin controls. Once you get
the break - unload and opposite rudder to stop the turn (normal anti spin
controls). I started all my spin test at 8=2C000.
Sorry this is so long=2C but I wanted to at least hit the highlights of the
story. I guess=2C my bottom line would be like I said above - I see no
reason to spin an airplane that the flight manual (Pilot's Operating Handbo
ok)
says is not aerobatic and no intentional spins. I have no idea how
experienced you are in spins=2C but I have seen them go flat or even invert
ed when
they should not have. There are just a lot of variables that you really
can't always plan for. All airplanes are different=2C especially those bui
lt
by individuals from a kit. What I saw the prototype do=2C might not be wha
t
you see your airplane do. Oh=2C another thing=2C have you jumped before or
gone through that type of training? Can you find the D ring in an OH SHIT
emergency? There really are a lot of things to think about before you make
the final decision to do this. I don't want this to sound negative=2C but
just want you to think about all the negative possibilities.
Blue Skies=2C
Buz
In a message dated 12/3/2009 5:42:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time=2C
bill@gdsx.com writes:
-->
Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan"
<bill@gdsx.com>
. er to My parachute should be delivered on
Wednesday of next week. One of the things that I want to use it for is
spin testing of my Lightning.
For the record=2C I like spins. But=2C
I have no experience spinning the Lightning and every time I've spun an
airplane for the first time I've worn a chute. But having a chute is
only useful if you have a safe way of exiting the airplane.
In a 150
aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress. Every other plane I've spun
had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.
Anyway=2C I've been
thinking about this issue in the Lightning. I've opened the canopy in
flight=2C and have found that it takes quite a shove to get it to go very
far at
all. In fact=2C more shove than I'll apply unless it's an emergency
because I am concerned I would do damage.
I tend towards the belief
that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY needed to. I've imagined
laying on my back and trying to kick the canopy out=2C but that leads to
images
of the canopy cracking outwards=2C only to trap my foot in it. Now THAT
would be a strange NTSB report.
Any opinions on what the failure
mode would be if I rolled onto my back and tried to kick the canopy out?
(Please don't say my legs. I'm deadlifting 450 and squatting
350.)
I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge
for the canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable
that
would pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting
under the panel on the copilot side where both cables would attach to a
handle. A hard yank on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope
the front of the canopy would lift off and temporarily pivot around the c
anopy
latch before departing the plane. I'd be ducking below the panel
regardless at that point. If I take this route=2C I'll replace the bolts
when I'm done with my sillyness.
Any other thoughts from the Jet
Jockeys out there?
Bill
Read this topic online
here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056=====
================
_nbsp=3B
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE
to find
Gifts
tric
re
b
k you for
p=3B
-Matt Dralle=2C
List
========================
Use the
ties
Day
=======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
========================
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?o
cid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_4:092009
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 |
|
Buz,
I do not mind you posting the Spin test report or cards. I think it will be
informative.
Nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Bailing out
Bill,
Last spring (late March and early April) I flew all the ASTM required
flight test profiles (including all the spin test) to get the Lightning
certified as a SLSA. The spin test flights were all flown in the prototype
Lightning since it had a ballistic parachute installed. The other flights
were flown in the silver demo Lightning. Nick and I had many long
discussions about bailing out of the Lightning and ways to jettison the
canopy. We basically decided that in an out of control situation, trying to
force the canopy open and climbing out while the aircraft was spinning was
not a real good option. (Flat spins can be amazingly fast) Nick even tried
to get some explosive bolts so that we could jettison the canopy, but the
regulations required to even buy the explosive bolts made that option
unworkable in a reasonable time frame. So that is why I flew the spin test
in the prototype. If things went wrong, I would use the whole aircraft
ballistic chute. Didn't even wear the chute I owned for the Pitts, So your
idea of having pins to pull that would allow you to get rid of the canopy
might be a good option if you can work it out. We didn't really work on
that option because of the ballistic chute option we had. Note: If you
make this type of change to your Lightning, you will have to put it back
into phase one testing and who knows how many hours your FAA rep might
require.
Up to this past March/April, this was the first time the long wing Lightning
had been spun. Nick had previously spun the original short wing with no
problems, but not the long wing. ASTM requirements were for the light sport
compliant airplane to be spun at all CG ranges and all configurations. From
lots of previous flights in many different Lightnings with the long wing, I
was not really concerned with possible spiral instability, but the
requirement to spin at full flaps did concern me quite a bit since from lots
of previous spin experience in the military and in numerous aerobatic
aircraft, I knew that flaps would tend to make the spin go flat. One other
thing - ASTM requirements were not for a fully developed spin - you could
apply anti spin controls during the incipient phase of the developing spin,
or to be more specific, the rules allowed me to apply anti spin controls at
either 3 seconds of spin or 1 turn - whichever came first. And that is
exactly what I did, particularly for the first spins at full aft CG and
certainly with the flaps down. It recovered, but not at quickly as the
normal clean spin situation.
I have a copy of all the written flight test results somewhere on my
computer and will look for the spin test flights and (with Nick's
permission) will post a copy of the spin test on the list, or maybe in the
newsletter. (What say you, Nick?)
Basically, the clean spin characteristics were excellent for forward CGs and
good for aft CGs and recovery was almost immediate as soon as I unloaded the
airplane. Clean and aft CG were not quite as quick to stop, but not
abnormal at all. Spins with flaps were much more a concern, but standard
anti spin controls were effective, but took some time. Don't try spins with
flaps.
So if you are going to spin, AND I SEE NO REASON TO DO THAT - THE LIGHTNING
FLIGHT MANUAL SAYS NO AEROBATICS AND NO INTENTIONAL SPINS, but if you really
must (will your insurance be valid if you are doing something not approved
in the POH?) only do so with no flaps deployed and a forward CG. Use idle
power and normal pro spin controls. Once you get the break - unload and
opposite rudder to stop the turn (normal anti spin controls). I started all
my spin test at 8,000.
Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to at least hit the highlights of the
story. I guess, my bottom line would be like I said above - I see no reason
to spin an airplane that the flight manual (Pilot's Operating Handbook) says
is not aerobatic and no intentional spins. I have no idea how experienced
you are in spins, but I have seen them go flat or even inverted when they
should not have. There are just a lot of variables that you really can't
always plan for. All airplanes are different, especially those built by
individuals from a kit. What I saw the prototype do, might not be what you
see your airplane do. Oh, another thing, have you jumped before or gone
through that type of training? Can you find the D ring in an OH SHIT
emergency? There really are a lot of things to think about before you make
the final decision to do this. I don't want this to sound negative, but
just want you to think about all the negative possibilities.
Blue Skies,
Buz
In a message dated 12/3/2009 5:42:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill@gdsx.com writes:
. er to My parachute should be delivered on Wednesday of next week. One of
the things that I want to use it for is spin testing of my Lightning.
For the record, I like spins. But, I have no experience spinning the
Lightning and every time I've spun an airplane for the first time I've worn
a chute. But having a chute is only useful if you have a safe way of
exiting the airplane.
In a 150 aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress. Every other plane
I've spun had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.
Anyway, I've been thinking about this issue in the Lightning. I've opened
the canopy in flight, and have found that it takes quite a shove to get it
to go very far at all. In fact, more shove than I'll apply unless it's an
emergency because I am concerned I would do damage.
I tend towards the belief that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY
needed to. I've imagined laying on my back and trying to kick the canopy
out, but that leads to images of the canopy cracking outwards, only to trap
my foot in it. Now THAT would be a strange NTSB report.
Any opinions on what the failure mode would be if I rolled onto my back and
tried to kick the canopy out? (Please don't say my legs. I'm deadlifting
450 and squatting 350.)
I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge for the
canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that would
pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting under
the panel on the copilot side where both cables would attach to a handle. A
hard yank on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope the front of
the canopy would lift off and temporarily pivot around the canopy latch
before departing the plane. I'd be ducking below the panel regardless at
that point. If I take this route, I'll replace the bolts when I'm done with
my sillyness.
Any other thoughts from the Jet Jockeys out there?
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056==================
===========================
_nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE to find Gifts tric re b k you for
p; -Matt Dralle, List ======================== Use the
ties Day ================================================ -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =================================================
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 |
|
Buz,
Valid concerns and I appreciate all the input. What's a D ring? ;)
Just kidding. Back when I started flying aerobatics I decided to do the initial
training for an accelerated freefall license and make at least the first jump.
If I ever had to bail out I didn't want that to be my introduction to parachute
use as well!
Once I did that, I had a much better comfort level with how things might be if
I ever needed to use the emergency chute.
It's probably more for me and my curiousity than anything. And it's not just spin
training. I want to take the plane to VNE, and test it to 5g at gross. Every
plane is different, and I will achieve peace of mind from feeling that my
plane is proven in these areas.
As to the POH, my understanding is that I am the author of the POH for my plane
since it is experimental, not LSA. My operating limitations on the other hand
are clear. I will be talking to my FSDO about that prior to any spins and as
you point out will have to have those limitations changed.
After I'm done, I can change them again to be more restrictive and/or I can put
the restrictions in the POH. Is this how you understand it?
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276149#276149
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 |
|
Bill
Sounds like you are experienced in this type of testing and may be very
comfortable doing this. Don't really know your background. Just a few
thoughts.
I design tactical military aircraft for a living and I am very
experienced in aircraft spin analysis and departure/spin flight test. I
am also an experienced pilot and I would not deliberately spin a
previously untested aircraft without a lot of high angle of attack wind
tunnel data and detailed analytic spin analysis and simulation time
histories. Also there are wind tunnels which flow vertically and allow
models to be spun in the tunnel and spin characteristics evaluated. An
acceptable Plan B would be to add a well designed spin chute on the
aircraft. This is NOT one of the off the shelf ballistic chutes
currently available. A spin recovery chute is custom designed and
typically has much longer risers and sturdy construction.
Having said all that, I will be very interested in your results if you
go forward with your spin testing.
Max
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Strahan
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:41 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Bailing out
My parachute should be delivered on Wednesday of next week. One of the
things that I want to use it for is spin testing of my Lightning.
For the record, I like spins. But, I have no experience spinning the
Lightning and every time I've spun an airplane for the first time I've
worn a chute. But having a chute is only useful if you have a safe way
of exiting the airplane.
In a 150 aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress. Every other plane
I've spun had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.
Anyway, I've been thinking about this issue in the Lightning. I've
opened the canopy in flight, and have found that it takes quite a shove
to get it to go very far at all. In fact, more shove than I'll apply
unless it's an emergency because I am concerned I would do damage.
I tend towards the belief that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY
needed to. I've imagined laying on my back and trying to kick the
canopy out, but that leads to images of the canopy cracking outwards,
only to trap my foot in it. Now THAT would be a strange NTSB report.
Any opinions on what the failure mode would be if I rolled onto my back
and tried to kick the canopy out? (Please don't say my legs. I'm
deadlifting 450 and squatting 350.)
I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge for the
canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that
would pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before
exiting under the panel on the copilot side where both cables would
attach to a handle. A hard yank on that handle should pull both pins
out and I hope the front of the canopy would lift off and temporarily
pivot around the canopy latch before departing the plane. I'd be
ducking below the panel regardless at that point. If I take this route,
I'll replace the bolts when I'm done with my sillyness.
Any other thoughts from the Jet Jockeys out there?
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056
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 |
|
Bill,
Quick question - did you go through the whole AFF or just the beginning of
it? If just the later - towards the end of the course you are specifically
required to do "hop-and-pop" jumps to introduce yourself to the lower
altitude exits and deployment, as those are psychologically different.
In any event, I would not count on using a chute in a plane that is a tip-up
design and doesn't have a canopy release.
Best regards,
Max
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Bill Strahan <bill@gdsx.com> wrote:
>
> Buz,
>
> Valid concerns and I appreciate all the input. What's a D ring? ;)
>
> Just kidding. Back when I started flying aerobatics I decided to do the
> initial training for an accelerated freefall license and make at least the
> first jump. If I ever had to bail out I didn't want that to be my
> introduction to parachute use as well!
>
> Once I did that, I had a much better comfort level with how things might be
> if I ever needed to use the emergency chute.
>
> It's probably more for me and my curiousity than anything. And it's not
> just spin training. I want to take the plane to VNE, and test it to 5g at
> gross. Every plane is different, and I will achieve peace of mind from
> feeling that my plane is proven in these areas.
>
> As to the POH, my understanding is that I am the author of the POH for my
> plane since it is experimental, not LSA. My operating limitations on the
> other hand are clear. I will be talking to my FSDO about that prior to any
> spins and as you point out will have to have those limitations changed.
>
> After I'm done, I can change them again to be more restrictive and/or I can
> put the restrictions in the POH. Is this how you understand it?
>
> Bill
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276149#276149
>
>
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 |
|
In a message dated 12/4/2009 10:04:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill@gdsx.com writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan" _bill@gdsx.com_
(mailto:bill@gdsx.com)
Buz,
Valid concerns and I appreciate all the input. What's a D ring? ;)
Hey Bill, I like you sense of humor - the D ring comment.
.
And yes, the builder is responsible for writing the POH for the airplane he
builds. In the case of the Lightning, they provide a good one that only
needs the performance section filled out once you have completed your Phase
one testing and have those numbers and that data to put in the POH
performance section. This is once again, because all kit built aircraft can be
slightly different. But I agree that during phase one every builder should
be testing his aircraft to verify all the numbers and performance data. Too
many builders really don't test their airplanes - they just fly off the 40
hours without ever really knowing their "jets" real stall speeds, real V
numbers, flutter test, max gross weight test, etc., etc.
But do remember that the Lightning kit was sold as being non aerobatic and
no intentional spins. You have probably already guessed one of the reason
why - the canopy, and of course the extra liability. Anyway, if you do
decide to do your own spins, do talk to your FSDO (and insurance company) about
the limitations. Follow the recommendations I mentioned yesterday (no
flaps, idle power, forward CG and then after no more than one turn or 3
seconds (whichever comes first), apply standard anti spin controls). But don't
do that on test number one - work your way up to the full turn or 3 seconds.
Baby steps - kind of like Max was suggesting.
Let me add one other critical thing I didn't mention yesterday - be sure
the ailerons are centered. If they are not, the tendency to accelerate or
go flat is great. One trick I picked up when spin testing a new airplane
is to actually put a bright piece of tape on the instrument panel that is
exactly in front of the stick when the ailerons are neutral. You will be
surprised at how many airplanes are enough out of rig so that with neutral
stick you actually have roll command to one side or the other. So center the
ailerons and then mark the panel with bright yellow tape where the stick is
when the ailerons are centered. It also gives you an "aiming" mark on
upright spins as to where to push the stick when you want to unload. When I
was flying competition in my Pitts, I used a similar technique for
lomcevaks.
I was able to find the flight test write ups from when I was doing the ASTM
certification flights for the Special Light Sport Lightning and will send
them out either later tonight or tomorrow. Just remember that the two spin
tests flight profiles were just two of 25 different flight tests that were
required. Many flights went before the spins that allowed me to verify
certain flight characteristics before actually doing the spin tests. Again,
kind of like Max was suggesting. One other thing I didn't mention
yesterday was the thinking through all the maneuvers and test flights before
actually going up to fly them. For one thing, it helps you be more efficient
in
the air with the time, but it also allows you to think through the various
scenarios of things that may go wrong and how to react to them. I kept
remembering things from my Air Force days - such as if the airplane ever does
something you didn't ask it to do - unload. Unload for control will get
you out of a lot of problems, but you have to do it early enough before
something really bad develops into an uncontrollable situation. And the
Lightning did not have a drag chute to help get the pointy end of the airplane
back into the lead position.
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have, but remember to
evaluate whether or not the risks are worth the rewards - or vice versa.
Blue Skies,
Buz
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: | Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
All,
Reference the spin (and bailout) topic of the last few days that was
initiated by Bill Strahan, I have attached the two spin test write ups that
were accomplished for the Lightning to get ASTM certification as a Special
Light Sport Aircraft. These two flight test profiles were part of the
overall 25 flight test that were required for ASTM certification in the SLSA
category. Test profile #12 is at a forward CG and covers both clean and
landing flap spin tests. Test profile #13 is at an aft CG and also covers both
clean and landing flap spin tests. Depending on the level of interest, I
think Nick would approve all 25 of the flight test being published in
future newsletters. Let us know what you think.
Blue Skies,
Buz
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: | Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
All,
Reference the spin (and bailout) topic of the last few days that was
initiated by Bill Strahan, I have attached the two spin test write ups that
were accomplished for the Lightning to get ASTM certification as a Special
Light Sport Aircraft. These two flight test profiles were part of the
overall 25 flight test that were required for ASTM certification in the SLSA
category. Test profile #12 is at a forward CG and covers both clean and
landing flap spin tests. Test profile #13 is at an aft CG and also covers both
clean and landing flap spin tests. Depending on the level of interest, I
think Nick would approve all 25 of the flight test being published in
future newsletters. Let us know what you think.
Blue Skies,
Buz
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 |
|
Max:
No, I'm definitely NOT experienced with this type of stuff. I've flown some acro,
and done a lot of spins. I'm more comfortable with a spin than a loop, but
I've done it in planes that had some pretty well known and repeatable spin characteristics.
I'm not a great pilot nor do I have the background Buz brings
to the table. I just enjoy this stuff, and if I can do it while remaining safe
I will.
I did not go beyond my first jump. It was an all day course, followed by the jump.
It was not a tandem jump, I jumped and had the instructors with me, and
pulled my own cord. That was what I was wanting. I didn't want the AFF license,
I just wanted the experience of getting out of a plane, freefall, stabilization,
and pulling the cord. I didn't drop it. I DID freeze out on the wing
strut, which was one more reason I was happy I did the jump. I know if I ever
need to get out to just keep moving, don't pause.
Buz & Max:
You both bring up valid points. I may decide not to explore the spins at all,
but the points for me about bailing out remain. What's the point in testing to
VNE, or doing any type of flutter testing if you do not have a plan for things
going bad?
I don't want to see it go from TARFU during testing to FUBAR because I can't get
out.
The temptation is strong to just assume I'll get the canopy open somehow. The
responsible thing (if it exists in this context) is to ensure some method of canopy
jettison. I'll keep stewing on this one and let you guys know what I end
up doing.
Thanks for your input, it was EXACTLY what I was looking for on the list. What
a resource.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276276#276276
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: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
Aw Buz, you tease! Am I missing the attachment somehow?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276277#276277
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 |
|
I dorked with my autopilot settings, static system, and all SORTS of crap trying
to get the dang thing to hold altitude. Mark said "just vent the static to
the cockpit."
I kept dorking around with it, trying just about everything to fix it. I finally
gave up two days ago and just did what Mark had been saying a few months ago.
Mark, feel free to send me one of Hallmark's new "I told you so" cards. :)
But the reason I'm posting is that I then kept playing with the settings and once
I set the Static Lag to 0 with it vented to the cockpit, it held altitude very
well even in some serious bumps and wind.
Which got me thinking, like any good programmer, to start backing out the changes
that didn't fix the problem. One of the changes recommended that I incorporated
originally was to move the autopilot pushrod to the innermost hole on the
control arm.
Of course, not only does that give the servo more torque to move the elevator,
it also gives the servo drag more torque to be placed into the control system.
I like light controls, so after I was certain everything was working well I
moved the autopilot pushrod to the outermost hole on the arm.
Not only could I immediately tell the difference on the ground in less servo drag
felt when moving full deflection, but I could also tell in the air, especially
when slow for landing. I was very happy with the change.
And it still held altitude perfectly! (This is another chance Mark, go ahead and
say it)
So if you have your autopilot altitude hold working, you might try moving to the
outermost hole on the control arm. Less servo drag, lighter controls.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276278#276278
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! --
|