Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:01 AM - Re: Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (N1BZRich@aol.com)
2. 06:14 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (EAFerguson@aol.com)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Kayberg@aol.com)
4. 07:47 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Brian Whittingham)
5. 07:57 AM - Re: Bailing out (Bill Strahan)
6. 08:00 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (Bill Strahan)
7. 08:22 AM - Bailing Out (Rosalie)
8. 08:27 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (n1bzrich@aol.com)
9. 08:34 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (n1bzrich@aol.com)
10. 08:40 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (n1bzrich@aol.com)
11. 08:42 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (Rick Bowen)
12. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Rosalie)
13. 08:47 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (flylightning)
14. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (N1BZRich@aol.com)
15. 09:25 AM - Re: Bailing Out (N1BZRich@aol.com)
16. 09:26 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (N1BZRich@aol.com)
17. 09:35 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (Jack Gonzenbach)
18. 09:37 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (IFLYSMODEL@aol.com)
19. 09:52 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (N1BZRich@aol.com)
20. 10:01 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (Rick Bowen)
21. 10:26 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Kayberg@aol.com)
22. 10:45 AM - Re: Autopilot (Dave)
23. 10:56 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS)
24. 11:26 AM - Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification (Brian Whittingham)
25. 11:30 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Brian Whittingham)
26. 11:31 AM - Re: Re: Bailing out (Brian Whittingham)
27. 11:43 AM - Re: Re: Re: Bailing out (Maxim Voronin)
28. 04:57 PM - Re: Bailing Out (Rosalie)
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: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
In a message dated 12/5/2009 1:30:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill@gdsx.com writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan" <bill@gdsx.com>
Aw Buz, you tease! Am I missing the attachment somehow?
I actually had to send this message (with attachments) out twice. The
first I got a message back from matronics saying that "The extension [docx] is
not allowed". The two spin test write ups had been docx files. So I then
saved the files as pdf and resent the message with the pdf attachments.
Seemed to go through fine. If anyone still didn't get the spin test write
ups, let me know. I will try again to the group or even send directly to
you.
Buz
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
In a message dated 12/4/2009 11:55:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
N1BZRich@aol.com writes:
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
Reassuring, but unlike Bill, I don't get excited by spins. Did the ASTM
Certification require loops or aileron rolls?
Earl
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 |
|
In a message dated 12/5/2009 1:29:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill@gdsx.com writes:
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.
This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are considering
trying more aggressive maneuvers in their Lightning's. I am not writing
as an expert in aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar
flying"
There seems to be several things that are universal to early attempts at
flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a Lightning.
That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots, at
least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz), who tried a sloppy roll
in a Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G
pullout. The plane saved them because of its strength, but it was not a fun
time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else, therefore it
reacts the same way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to "get out" of the plane if something goes bad.
The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two
separate occasions, during spin testing, two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots, but the point
is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a particular
airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules? A good one
might be, no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without A)a canopy release
and a parachute or B) an airframe chute. Which is why I am impressed by
Bill's willingness to raise the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's
accounts, you may recall he had a flap problem during testing and the plane
rolled upside down ....faster than even he could respond to. You will also note
to ENTER a spin, it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high
angles. Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls, the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot of
cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive maneuvers.
There is a reason the most experienced and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont
talk about what they can do in a Lightning. They are afraid someone who
overestimates their piloting skills will try it with fatal results. Not
because the airplane is unsafe, but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the "brand". We
know what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful
of crashes, without a single common cause, out of more than 1,000 flying to
"ground" that whole bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's
with no common cause.... out of a lot less than 1,000 flying. We really need
Lightning pilots to act wisely, not just for their sake but for the sake
of all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be buzzing
along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane. A few swerves, turns
and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop, roll or spin. Take a
cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
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 |
|
Doug=2C I'd like to add to your email there=2C comment number 3. Both C
essna Skycatchers had a ballistic parachute=2C the first failed to work pro
perly and the pilot then had to bail out. I don't remember if the second p
rototype worked correctly or not=2C I think it did=2C but the plane was des
troyed anyhow after repeated impact with the ground.
I agree with several assessments here. Flight test your aircraft to know t
hat your performance within the specified envelope. Go from what is known
to what is unknown in small steps and expect the unexpected and give yourse
lf multiple outs. Either don't risk doing things like spin testing or do s
o with an experienced test pilot and test profile. Brian W.
From: Kayberg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out
In a message dated 12/5/2009 1:29:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time=2C
bill@gdsx.com writes:
Max:
No=2C I'm definitely NOT experienced with this type of
stuff. I've flown some acro=2C and done a lot of spins. I'm more
comfortable with a spin than a loop=2C but I've done it in planes that ha
d 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=2C and if I can do it while remaining safe I
will.
This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are considering
trying more aggressive maneuvers in their Lightning's. I am
not writing as an expert in aerobatics. I am using several
third party anecdotes. It is just my mental
compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar flying"
There seems to be several things that are universal to early attempts at
flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a
Lightning. That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4
different pilots=2C at least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys (not
Buz)=2C who tried a sloppy roll in a Lightning and ended up going
straight down and needed a high G pullout. The plane saved
them because of its strength=2C but it was not a fun time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else=2C therefore it
reacts the same way. A couple of the previously mention pilots
had high performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up
their first roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to "get out" of the plane if something
goes bad. The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher
(SkyCatcher). On two separate occasions=2C during spin
testing=2C two different airplanes became uncontrollable and ended up
crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots=2C but the point is that even
experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a particular airframe can
end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules? A good one
might be=2C no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without A)a canopy release
and a parachute or B) an airframe chute. Which is why I am impressed
by Bill's willingness to raise the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read
Buz's accounts=2C you may recall he had a flap problem during testing and t
he
plane rolled upside down ....faster than even he could respond
to. You will also note to ENTER a spin=2C it was necessary to
pitch the nose up at very high angles. Same for doing departure
stalls. If you work at doing aggressive stalls=2C the plane can also
respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot of cautions about
becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive
maneuvers. There is a reason the most experienced and skilled pilots
of Lightnings dont talk about what they can do in a Lightning. They are
afraid someone who overestimates their piloting skills will try it with fat
al
results. Not because the airplane is unsafe=2C but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR
AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the
"brand". We know what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac
XL. It only took a handful of crashes=2C without a single common cause=2C
out
of more than 1=2C000 flying to "ground" that whole bunch. We have
already lost a couple Lightning's with no common cause.... out of a lot les
s
than 1=2C000 flying. We really need Lightning pilots to act wisely=2C
not just for their sake but for the sake of all of use who love the
plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be
buzzing along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane.
A few swerves=2C turns and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop
=2C roll or
spin. Take a cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free=2Cexclusive gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?o
cid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009
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 |
|
Doug:
Good points! I have thought to myself a few times how Nick probably has his head
in his hands saying "No, Bill, control yourself!"
:)
Your description of the bad turnout of the attempted rolls resonates with me.
I have to say I wouldn't think twice about a roll in an RV, but with the long
wingtips the roll rate on the Lightning is just not fast enough for me to be comfortable
with it.
I flew a bunch in a Giles 202 one summer, and the pilot I flew with showed me how
people botch a roll. The lesson stuck with me, even though there was no risk
in the Giles.
Back to the Lightning, my thought was it would be easy to not pull the nose up
enough (or too much!) and botch a roll because of the slower roll rate, especially
if you didn't unload it through inverted.
The plane feels sporty, and that can make it tempting. While I'm sure it can be
done safely, and I'm also sure many have done it, I haven't.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276308#276308
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: | Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
I only read the web version of the list, and I'm not seeing the attachment.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276310#276310
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 |
|
Doug's comments are very wise.
I am one of those Zodiac owners. I am parting out my airplane for
specific reasons.
However, some of us pilots are aware of the conditions in which those
airplanes were flown when they crashed...250# over gross, extreme high
speed low pass, aggressive speeds in an airplane at 1200#. These are
pilot issues. The point is that these LSA's are extremely light
aircraft which are advertised to fly at 138 mph. In my opinion that is
WAY over acceptable speeds for the aluminum airframes, and the tube and
fabric airframes. What could have saved lives? Answer: prudent and
conservative flying. These are not aerobatic airplanes. If someone
wants to fly it aggressively, then they risk their own life, but also
impact the future of other owners.
Now...I am on this list because I am contemplating a purchase of a
Lightening for its structural strength. But, I would not consider
aerobatics in it.
("Sad") Brad
former Zodiac builder/pilot.
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:14:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
EAFerguson@aol.com writes:
Did the ASTM Certification require loops or aileron rolls?
No, loops and rolls were not required. Roll response was measured by
timing roll reversals as I recall. I guess I need to go back and read all 25
of the flight test.
Did you get the attachments that had the spin write ups? Or anyone else?
I am trying to figure out if I need to try some other way to send them.
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 |
|
Doug,
Well stated, Doug, and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down
to earth wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill.
;-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Kaybe
rg@aol.com writes:.
This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are considering
trying more aggressive maneuvers in their Lightning's. I am not writing
as an expert in aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar
flying"
There seems to be several things that are universal to early attempts at
flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a Lightning.
That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots, at
least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz), who tried a sloppy roll
in a Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G
pullout. The plane saved them because of its strength, but it was not a fun
time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else, therefore it
reacts the same way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to "get out" of the plane if something goes bad.
The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two
separate occasions, during spin testing, two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots, but the point
is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a particular
airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules? A good
one might be, no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without A)a canopy release
and a parachute or B) an airframe chute. Which is why I am impressed by
Bill's willingness to raise the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's
accounts, you may recall he had a flap problem during testing and the plane
rolled upside down ....faster than even he could respond to. You will also note
to ENTER a spin, it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high
angles. Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls, the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot of
cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive maneuvers.
There is a reason the most experienced and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont
talk about what they can do in a Lightning. They are afraid someone who
overestimates their piloting skills will try it with fatal results. Not
because the airplane is unsafe, but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the "brand". We
know what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful
of crashes, without a single common cause, out of more than 1,000 flying to
"ground" that whole bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's
with no common cause.... out of a lot less than 1,000 flying. We really need
Lightning pilots to act wisely, not just for their sake but for the sake
of all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be buzzing
along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane. A few swerves, turns
and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop, roll or spin. Take a
cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
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 |
|
Doug,
Well stated, Doug, and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down
to earth wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill.
;-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Kaybe
rg@aol.com writes:.
This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are considering
trying more aggressive maneuvers in their Lightning's. I am not writing
as an expert in aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar
flying"
There seems to be several things that are universal to early attempts at
flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a Lightning.
That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots, at
least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz), who tried a sloppy roll
in a Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G
pullout. The plane saved them because of its strength, but it was not a fun
time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else, therefore it
reacts the same way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to "get out" of the plane if something goes bad.
The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two
separate occasions, during spin testing, two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots, but the point
is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a particular
airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules? A good
one might be, no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without A)a canopy release
and a parachute or B) an airframe chute. Which is why I am impressed by
Bill's willingness to raise the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's
accounts, you may recall he had a flap problem during testing and the plane
rolled upside down ....faster than even he could respond to. You will also note
to ENTER a spin, it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high
angles. Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls, the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot of
cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive maneuvers.
There is a reason the most experienced and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont
talk about what they can do in a Lightning. They are afraid someone who
overestimates their piloting skills will try it with fatal results. Not
because the airplane is unsafe, but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the "brand". We
know what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful
of crashes, without a single common cause, out of more than 1,000 flying to
"ground" that whole bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's
with no common cause.... out of a lot less than 1,000 flying. We really need
Lightning pilots to act wisely, not just for their sake but for the sake
of all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be buzzing
along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane. A few swerves, turns
and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop, roll or spin. Take a
cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
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: | Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
Hey Buz=2C
I got the attachments---But I could not open them (?)....
Not sure why=2C I pretty much have no issues when you send out stuff.
I HAVE had problems a couple of times when the Arion folks have sent attach
ments.
Computers.....some days I love 'em=2C some days I HATE 'em!!!
Rick
From: n1bzrich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certific
ation
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:14:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time=2C EAFergus
on@aol.com writes:
Did the ASTM Certification require loops or aileron rolls?
No=2C loops and rolls were not required. Roll response was measured by tim
ing roll reversals as I recall. I guess I need to go back and read all 25
of the flight test.
Did you get the attachments that had the spin write ups? Or anyone else?
I am trying to figure out if I need to try some other way to send them.
Buz
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free=2Cexclusive gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?o
cid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009
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 |
|
Doug's comments are very wise.
I am one of those Zodiac owners. I am parting out my airplane for
specific reasons.
However, some of us pilots are aware of the conditions in which those
airplanes were flown when they crashed...250# over gross, extreme high
speed low pass, aggressive speeds in an airplane at 1200#. These are
pilot issues. The point is that these LSA's are extremely light
aircraft which are advertised to fly at 138 mph. In my opinion that is
WAY over acceptable speed for the aluminum airframes, and the tube and
fabric airframes. What could have saved lives? Answer: prudent and
conservative flying. These are not aerobatic airplanes. If someone
wants to fly it aggressively, then they risk their own life, but also
impact the future of other owners.
Now...I am on this list because I am contemplating a purchase of a
Lightening for its structural strength. But, I would not consider
aerobatics in it.
("Sad") Brad
former Zodiac builder/pilot.
n1bzrich@aol.com wrote:
> Doug,
> Well stated, Doug, and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of
> down to earth wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes
> downhill. ;-)
> Buz
>
>
> In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> Kayberg@aol.com writes:.
>
> This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are
> considering trying more aggressive maneuvers in their
> Lightning's. I am not writing as an expert in aerobatics. I
> am using several third party anecdotes. It is just my mental
> compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar flying"
>
> There seems to be several things that are universal to early
> attempts at flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
>
> 1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a
> Lightning. That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4
> different pilots, at least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys
> (not Buz), who tried a sloppy roll in a Lightning and ended up
> going straight down and needed a high G pullout. The plane
> saved them because of its strength, but it was not a fun time.
>
> 2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else,
> therefore it reacts the same way. A couple of the previously
> mention pilots had high performance aerobatic planes. They still
> screwed up their first roll.
>
> 3) Assuming you wont _need_ to "get out" of the plane if something
> goes bad. The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher
> (SkyCatcher). On two separate occasions, during spin
> testing, two different airplanes became uncontrollable and ended
> up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots, but the point is that
> even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a particular
> airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules?
> A good one might be, no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without
> A)a canopy release and a parachute or B) an airframe chute.
> Which is why I am impressed by Bill's willingness to raise the
> issue in the first place.
>
> 4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read
> Buz's accounts, you may recall he had a flap problem during
> testing and the plane rolled upside down ....faster than even
> he could respond to. You will also note to ENTER a spin, it was
> necessary to pitch the nose up at very high angles. Same for
> doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive stalls,
> the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot
> of cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
>
> 5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive
> maneuvers. There is a reason the most experienced and skilled
> pilots of Lightnings dont talk about what they can do in a
> Lightning. They are afraid someone who overestimates their
> piloting skills will try it with fatal results. Not because the
> airplane is unsafe, but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
>
> 6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the
> "brand". We know what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac
> XL. It only took a handful of crashes, without a single common
> cause, out of more than 1,000 flying to "ground" that whole
> bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's with no common
> cause.... out of a lot less than 1,000 flying. We really need
> Lightning pilots to act wisely, not just for their sake but for
> the sake of all of use who love the plane.
>
> 7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be
> buzzing along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane. A few
> swerves, turns and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop,
> roll or spin. Take a cold shower first.
>
> FWIW
>
> Doug Koenigsberg
>
> *
>
> ===================================
> ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
> m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
> "http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
> tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
> t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> ===================================
> ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
I am reading all of this and all good points from all, see the voice has not
had to speak in this case. However I would like to point something out,
It snowed last night here in TN and it is freakin cold!!!
Nick
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n1bzrich@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out
Doug,
Well stated, Doug, and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down to
earth wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill. ;-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Kayberg@aol.com writes:.
This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are considering
trying more aggressive maneuvers in their Lightning's. I am not writing
as an expert in aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar
flying"
There seems to be several things that are universal to early attempts at
flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a Lightning.
That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots, at least 2
were former Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz), who tried a sloppy roll in a
Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G pullout.
The plane saved them because of its strength, but it was not a fun time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else, therefore it
reacts the same way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to "get out" of the plane if something goes bad.
The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two separate
occasions, during spin testing, two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots, but the
point is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a
particular airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules?
A good one might be, no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without A)a canopy
release and a parachute or B) an airframe chute. Which is why I am
impressed by Bill's willingness to raise the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's
accounts, you may recall he had a flap problem during testing and the plane
rolled upside down ....faster than even he could respond to. You will also
note to ENTER a spin, it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high
angles. Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls, the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot of
cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive maneuvers.
There is a reason the most experienced and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont
talk about what they can do in a Lightning. They are afraid someone who
overestimates their piloting skills will try it with fatal results. Not
because the airplane is unsafe, but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the "brand". We know
what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful of
crashes, without a single common cause, out of more than 1,000 flying to
"ground" that whole bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's with
no common cause.... out of a lot less than 1,000 flying. We really need
Lightning pilots to act wisely, not just for their sake but for the sake of
all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be buzzing
along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane. A few swerves, turns and
banks feel good and we think she wants to loop, roll or spin. Take a cold
shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
===================================
ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
===================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
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 |
|
Probably makes you think you are back in Wisconsin.
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 11:47:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
info@flylightning.net writes:
I am reading all of this and all good points from all, see the voice has
not had to speak in this case. However I would like to point something out,
It snowed last night here in TN and it is freakin cold!!!
Nick
____________________________________
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of n1bzrich@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out
Doug,
Well stated, Doug, and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down to
earth wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill. ;-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Kayberg@aol.com writes:.
This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are considering
trying more aggressive maneuvers in their Lightning's. I am not writing
as an expert in aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from "hangar
flying"
There seems to be several things that are universal to early attempts at
flying beyond the recommendations of the kit maker.
1) Assumptions that a little experience is enough to handle a Lightning.
That is OK if one is lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots, at
least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz), who tried a sloppy roll
in a Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G
pullout. The plane saved them because of its strength, but it was not a fun
time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else, therefore it
reacts the same way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to "get out" of the plane if something goes bad.
The best case here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two
separate occasions, during spin testing, two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots, but the point
is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of a particular
airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal rules? A good
one might be, no aerobatic attempts in a Lightning without A)a canopy release
and a parachute or B) an airframe chute. Which is why I am impressed by
Bill's willingness to raise the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's
accounts, you may recall he had a flap problem during testing and the plane
rolled upside down ....faster than even he could respond to. You will also
note to ENTER a spin, it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high
angles. Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls, the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a lot of
cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who have done aggressive maneuvers.
There is a reason the most experienced and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont
talk about what they can do in a Lightning. They are afraid someone who
overestimates their piloting skills will try it with fatal results. Not
because the airplane is unsafe, but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their screw up on the "brand". We
know what the Feds just did to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful
of crashes, without a single common cause, out of more than 1,000 flying to
"ground" that whole bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's
with no common cause.... out of a lot less than 1,000 flying. We really
need Lightning pilots to act wisely, not just for their sake but for the sake
of all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all know what it feels like to be buzzing
along on a great day strapped in a fine airplane. A few swerves, turns
and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop, roll or spin. Take a
cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
===================================
ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
===================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
www.aeroelectric.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
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 |
|
Brad,
I feel the same way you do that the majority of the 601XL problems
were probably being caused by pilot input. Unfortunately, about four years
ago I had talked our EAA chapter into buying a 601XL kit and building it as a
chapter project. I was the technical counselor on the project and the guy
that made sure it was built according to plans. The building process went
well and all the chapter members involved learned a lot about acceptable
aircraft building standards and reading blueprints, etc. When the airplane
was completed, four guys in the chapter bought it, formed a LLC, and have
put close to 300 hours on it in the last 2 &1/2 years. I made the initial
flights before turning it over to the owners (about 10 hours) and since
then the owners have enjoyed it very much, but have only flown it well inside
the stated performance envelop.
Today the wings are coming off to get ready to accomplish the latest
changes. I don't know how long it will take us to get all those changes
accomplished, but the owners knew that in order to sell it in the future, the
changes needed to be accomplished - not because they were worried about
flying their aircraft.
The point of this message is to let you know I understand what you are
going through. You have probably already invested a lot of time into your
project and now will be starting again. Bummer. But I also want you to
know that looking at all the kits out there, you can't do any better than
the Lightning if "time to build" is anywhere on your decision matrix. It is
absolutely the best airplane out there that can meet the light sport
requirements if that is also a part of your decision process.
So good luck in your hunt for your next project and don't hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions. I probably sound like I am on the
Lighting payroll, but that is not the case. Heck, I don't even own one. I
have flown lots of them and believe in their product and the people that
made it happen. Good friends.
Blue Skies,
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 11:22:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rosestar@sonic.net writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: Rosalie <rosestar@sonic.net>
Doug's comments are very wise.
I am one of those Zodiac owners. I am parting out my airplane for
specific reasons.
However, some of us pilots are aware of the conditions in which those
airplanes were flown when they crashed...250# over gross, extreme high
speed low pass, aggressive speeds in an airplane at 1200#. These are
pilot issues. The point is that these LSA's are extremely light
aircraft which are advertised to fly at 138 mph. In my opinion that is
WAY over acceptable speeds for the aluminum airframes, and the tube and
fabric airframes. What could have saved lives? Answer: prudent and
conservative flying. These are not aerobatic airplanes. If someone
wants to fly it aggressively, then they risk their own life, but also
impact the future of other owners.
Now...I am on this list because I am contemplating a purchase of a
Lightening for its structural strength. But, I would not consider
aerobatics in it.
("Sad") Brad
former Zodiac builder/pilot.
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: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
In a message dated 12/5/2009 11:42:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rollnloop@hotmail.com writes:
I got the attachments---But I could not open them (?)....
Hey Rick, good to hear from you. Hope all is well in northern Virginia.
But one question, are you normally able to open pdf attachments. I am not
a computer guy at all and can't figure WTF is happening?
Blue Skies,
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: | Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification |
Buz,
I got both emails; one with the pdf's attached and one with the docx files.
Both opened fine on my PC. I found earlier that in order to get the
attachments, you have to be on the regular Lightning-List that sends the
emails individually to your email account. If on the daily digest as I was
earlier, or only use the web access to the list, you won't get any
attachments.
Thanks for sharing this info.
Jack
Jack Gonzenbach
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n1bzrich@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA
certification
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:14:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
EAFerguson@aol.com writes:
Did the ASTM Certification require loops or aileron rolls?
No, loops and rolls were not required. Roll response was measured by timing
roll reversals as I recall. I guess I need to go back and read all 25 of
the flight test.
Did you get the attachments that had the spin write ups? Or anyone else? I
am trying to figure out if I need to try some other way to send them.
Buz
Message 18
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 |
Hey Buz: I got the attachments in the first e-mail, and they opened just
fine without any special programs. But then we are on the same net (AOL) and
my windows program (XP) opened it seamlessly.
Lynn Nelsen
In a message dated 12/5/2009 12:26:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
N1BZRich@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 12/5/2009 11:42:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rollnloop@hotmail.com writes:
I got the attachments---But I could not open them (?)....
Hey Rick, good to hear from you. Hope all is well in northern Virginia.
But one question, are you normally able to open pdf attachments. I am not
a computer guy at all and can't figure WTF is happening?
Blue Skies,
Buz
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
Message 19
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 |
Jack, thanks for the feedback. Now I understand. Hopefully Bill will
read this and know why he didn't see the attachments. I guess I can send
them
directly to his email address.
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 12:36:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jgonzenbach@jegcons.com writes:
Buz,
I got both emails; one with the pdf=99s attached and one with the
docx
files. Both opened fine on my PC. I found earlier that in order to get th
e
attachments, you have to be on the regular Lightning-List that sends the
emails
individually to your email account. If on the daily digest as I was
earlier, or only use the web access to the list, you won=99t get an
y attachments.
Thanks for sharing this info.
Jack
Jack Gonzenbach
____________________________________
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of n1bzrich@a
ol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA
certification
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:14:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
EAFerguson@aol.com writes:
Did the ASTM Certification require loops or aileron rolls?
No, loops and rolls were not required. Roll response was measured by
timing roll reversals as I recall. I guess I need to go back and read al
l 25
of the flight test.
Did you get the attachments that had the spin write ups? Or anyone else?
I am trying to figure out if I need to try some other way to send them.
Buz
-- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
* AeroElectric _www.aeroelectric.com_ (http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
* The Builder's Bookstore _www.buildersbooks.com_
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
* HomebuiltHELP _www.homebuilthelp.com_ (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/
)
List Contribution Web Site:
--> _http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
- The Lightning-List Email Forum -
--> _http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
========================
============
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List)
========================
============
========================
============
Message 20
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 |
Buz=2C
Hope you haven't got any snow yet...as of noon here on the Northern Neck=2C
we only have rain.
Course=2C the BAD news is=2C the ground is so saturated=2C my runway has wa
ter standing even with the top of the grass for about the first 500ft of th
e northern end.
I just want a freeze so I can get the plane out of the hangar!
As far as the files=2C yes I normally can open pdf files fine.And as I said
=2C I open most "stuff" just fine.
I AM on my home computer=2C which is light years slower than my work comput
er.And=2C I only have dial-up service here.....
If you don't mind=2C try sending the files directly to me off list=2Cand I
will see what happens.
Stay dry Buz=2C and Merry Christmas to you!!
Rick
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certific
ation
In a message dated 12/5/2009 11:42:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time=2C rollnlo
op@hotmail.com writes:
I got the attachments---But I could not open them (?)....
Hey Rick=2C good to hear from you. Hope all is well in northern Virginia.
But one question=2C are you normally able to open pdf attachments. I am no
t a computer guy at all and can't figure WTF is happening?
Blue Skies=2C
Buz
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?o
cid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_1:092009
Message 21
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 12/5/2009 10:57:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill@gdsx.com writes:
Doug:
Good points! I have thought to myself a few times how Nick probably has
his head in his hands saying "No, Bill, control yourself!"
:)
Your description of the bad turnout of the attempted rolls resonates with
me. I have to say I wouldn't think twice about a roll in an RV, but with
the long wingtips the roll rate on the Lightning is just not fast enough for
me to be comfortable with it.
I flew a bunch in a Giles 202 one summer, and the pilot I flew with showed
me how people botch a roll. The lesson stuck with me, even though there
was no risk in the Giles.
Back to the Lightning, my thought was it would be easy to not pull the
nose up enough (or too much!) and botch a roll because of the slower roll
rate, especially if you didn't unload it through inverted.
The plane feels sporty, and that can make it tempting. While I'm sure it
can be done safely, and I'm also sure many have done it, I haven't.
Bill
I have heard the short wing will roll fast enough, dont know of a long wing
being rolled.
I have no real desire to do rolls in a Lightning, so I have no idea how to
do them correctly. The stories of having the nose pointed at the ground
and the airspeed passing 195 tend to deter me.
And thanks for your considerations. Again, I am just hoping people will
do what you have done and give this thing some real thought before just
ramming the stick against the stop.
Doug
Message 22
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
Let me throw this at you --- my altitude also would vary 50 ft in less than
smooth air. My problem was in my bell crank-- too much play on the pivot
bolt-- problem solved after installing proper size bolt and lube.
Esqual stuff
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Strahan" <bill@gdsx.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 12:38 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: Autopilot
>
> 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
>
>
>
Message 23
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 |
Buz,
I got them twice.
----- Original Message -----
From: n1bzrich@aol.com
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA
certification
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:14:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
EAFerguson@aol.com writes:
Did the ASTM Certification require loops or aileron rolls?
No, loops and rolls were not required. Roll response was measured by
timing roll reversals as I recall. I guess I need to go back and read
all 25 of the flight test.
Did you get the attachments that had the spin write ups? Or anyone
else? I am trying to figure out if I need to try some other way to send
them.
Buz
Message 24
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 |
The .docx files are the ones that I downloaded and work fine. If somebody
has an earlier version than 2007 of Word then these will not work without d
ownloading a plug-in. I got both sets of attachments though. I don't thin
k those attachments will show up unless you are on the actual email list.
Brian W.
From: jgonzenbach@jegcons.com
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certific
ation
Buz=2C
I got both emails=3B one with the pdf=92s attached and one with the docx
files. Both opened fine on my PC. I found earlier that in order to get the
attachments=2C
you have to be on the regular Lightning-List that sends the emails individu
ally
to your email account. If on the daily digest as I was earlier=2C or only u
se the
web access to the list=2C you won=92t get any attachments.
Thanks for sharing this info.
Jack
Jack Gonzenbach
From:
owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of n1bzrich@ao
l.com
Sent: Saturday=2C December 05=2C 2009
10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Spin
test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:14:45 A.M.
Eastern Standard Time=2C EAFerguson@aol.com writes:
Did the ASTM Certification require
loops or aileron rolls?
No=2C loops and rolls were not
required. Roll response was measured by timing roll reversals as I
recall. I guess I need to go back and read all 25 of the flight
test.
Did you get the attachments that had the
spin write ups? Or anyone else? I am trying to figure out if I need
to try some other way to send them.
Buz
-- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- (And Get Some
AWESOME FREE Gifts!)November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on th
is year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided * AeroElectric www.aer
oelectric.com * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com * Home
builtHELP www.homebuilthelp.comList Contribution Web Site:--> http://www.ma
tronics.com/contributionThank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle=2C List Admin. - The Lightning-List Em
ail Forum ---> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
- 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 25
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 |
|
Nick=2C *sigh* I miss living there. When we moved to Houston we were tol
d that it snows like once every 10-20 years. This is my third year down he
re and it's snowed three times. The latest was yesterday=2C from about 8am
-6pm. Of course two or three weeks ago we were high 80's so nothing stuck
=2C but then the temp dropped to 26 last night and probably caused some sli
ck spots. Next month I'm flying a Stearman and trying to figure out how to
keep from freezing with an 80mph wind in my face all the time. I imagine
it'll probably be similar to riding a motorcycle in the middle of winter.
Stay warm up there=2C Brian W.
From: info@flylightning.net
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out
I am reading all of this and all good
points from all=2C see the voice has not had to speak in this case. However
I would
like to point something out=2C
It
snowed last night here in TN and it is freakin cold!!!
Nick
From:
owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-serv
er@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of n1bzrich@aol.com
Sent: Saturday=2C December 05=2C 2009
10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re:
Bailing out
Doug=2C
Well stated=2C
Doug=2C and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down to earth
wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill.
=3B-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M.
Eastern Standard Time=2C Kayberg@aol.com writes:.
This is more of a general response to
Bill and others who are considering trying more aggressive maneuvers in
their Lightning's. I am not writing as an expert in
aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from
"hangar flying"
There seems to be several things that are
universal to early attempts at flying beyond the recommendations of the kit
maker.
1) Assumptions that a little
experience is enough to handle a Lightning. That is OK if one is
lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots=2C at least 2 were former
Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz)=2C who tried a sloppy roll in a
Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G pullout.
The plane saved them because of its strength=2C but it was not a fun time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is
"like" something else=2C therefore it reacts the same
way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first
roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to
"get out" of the plane if something goes bad. The best case
here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two separate
occasions=2C during spin testing=2C two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots=2C
but the point is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of
a
particular airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal
rules? A good one might be=2C no aerobatic attempts in a
Lightning without A)a canopy release and a parachute or B) an airframe
chute. Which is why I am impressed by Bill's willingness to raise
the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response
wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's accounts=2C you may recall he had a flap
problem during testing and the plane rolled upside down ....faster than
even he could respond to. You will also note to ENTER a
spin=2C it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high angles.
Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls=2C the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a
lot of cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who
have done aggressive maneuvers. There is a reason the most experienced
and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont talk about what they can do in a
Lightning. They are afraid someone who overestimates their piloting
skills will try it with fatal results. Not because the airplane is
unsafe=2C but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their
screw up on the "brand". We know what the Feds just did
to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful of crashes=2C without a
single common cause=2C out of more than 1=2C000 flying to "ground" that who
le
bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's with no common
cause.... out of a lot less than 1=2C000 flying. We really need
Lightning pilots to act wisely=2C not just for their sake but for the sake
of all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all
know what it feels like to be buzzing along on a great day strapped
in a fine airplane. A few swerves=2C turns and banks feel good
and we think she wants to loop=2C roll or spin. Take a cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
========================
============ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroel
ectric.comm/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com"h
ttp://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.comtp://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution========
===t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http:
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List==========
=ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com========
===
www.aeroelectric.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contrib
ution
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?o
cid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_1:092009
Message 26
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 |
|
Nick=2C *sigh* I miss living there. When we moved to Houston we were tol
d that it snows like once every 10-20 years. This is my third year down he
re and it's snowed three times. The latest was yesterday=2C from about 8am
-6pm. Of course two or three weeks ago we were high 80's so nothing stuck
=2C but then the temp dropped to 26 last night and probably caused some sli
ck spots. Next month I'm flying a Stearman and trying to figure out how to
keep from freezing with an 80mph wind in my face all the time. I imagine
it'll probably be similar to riding a motorcycle in the middle of winter.
Stay warm up there=2C Brian W.
From: info@flylightning.net
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out
I am reading all of this and all good
points from all=2C see the voice has not had to speak in this case. However
I would
like to point something out=2C
It
snowed last night here in TN and it is freakin cold!!!
Nick
From:
owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-serv
er@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of n1bzrich@aol.com
Sent: Saturday=2C December 05=2C 2009
10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re:
Bailing out
Doug=2C
Well stated=2C
Doug=2C and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down to earth
wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill.
=3B-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M.
Eastern Standard Time=2C Kayberg@aol.com writes:.
This is more of a general response to
Bill and others who are considering trying more aggressive maneuvers in
their Lightning's. I am not writing as an expert in
aerobatics. I am using several third party anecdotes.
It is just my mental compilations. It is what I have heard from
"hangar flying"
There seems to be several things that are
universal to early attempts at flying beyond the recommendations of the kit
maker.
1) Assumptions that a little
experience is enough to handle a Lightning. That is OK if one is
lucky. I have heard of 4 different pilots=2C at least 2 were former
Air Force jet jockeys (not Buz)=2C who tried a sloppy roll in a
Lightning and ended up going straight down and needed a high G pullout.
The plane saved them because of its strength=2C but it was not a fun time.
2) Assumptions that a Lightning is
"like" something else=2C therefore it reacts the same
way. A couple of the previously mention pilots had high
performance aerobatic planes. They still screwed up their first
roll.
3) Assuming you wont need to
"get out" of the plane if something goes bad. The best case
here is the Cessna BugCatcher (SkyCatcher). On two separate
occasions=2C during spin testing=2C two different airplanes became
uncontrollable and ended up crashing. Parachutes saved the pilots=2C
but the point is that even experienced pilots with an intimate knowledge of
a
particular airframe can end up badly..... Do you fly with personal
rules? A good one might be=2C no aerobatic attempts in a
Lightning without A)a canopy release and a parachute or B) an airframe
chute. Which is why I am impressed by Bill's willingness to raise
the issue in the first place.
4) Assuming the plane's response
wont be abrupt. If you read Buz's accounts=2C you may recall he had a flap
problem during testing and the plane rolled upside down ....faster than
even he could respond to. You will also note to ENTER a
spin=2C it was necessary to pitch the nose up at very high angles.
Same for doing departure stalls. If you work at doing aggressive
stalls=2C the plane can also respond aggressively. Remember Buz has a
lot of cautions about becoming inverted and entering flat spins.
5) Ignoring the cautions of people who
have done aggressive maneuvers. There is a reason the most experienced
and skilled pilots of Lightnings dont talk about what they can do in a
Lightning. They are afraid someone who overestimates their piloting
skills will try it with fatal results. Not because the airplane is
unsafe=2C but it WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR AEROBATICS!!
6) Not thinking about the effect of their
screw up on the "brand". We know what the Feds just did
to the Zenair Zodiac XL. It only took a handful of crashes=2C without a
single common cause=2C out of more than 1=2C000 flying to "ground" that who
le
bunch. We have already lost a couple Lightning's with no common
cause.... out of a lot less than 1=2C000 flying. We really need
Lightning pilots to act wisely=2C not just for their sake but for the sake
of all of use who love the plane.
7) Not resisting temptation. We all
know what it feels like to be buzzing along on a great day strapped
in a fine airplane. A few swerves=2C turns and banks feel good
and we think she wants to loop=2C roll or spin. Take a cold shower first.
FWIW
Doug Koenigsberg
========================
============ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroel
ectric.comm/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com"h
ttp://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.comtp://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution========
===t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http:
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List==========
=ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com========
===
www.aeroelectric.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contrib
ution
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/videos-tours.aspx?h=7sec&slide
id=1&media=aero-shake-7second&listid=1&stop=1&ocid=PID24727::T:WL
MTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_7secdemo:122009
Message 27
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 |
|
Just drove from the Door County, WI yesterday. Pretty nice up there and no
snow. Chicago on the other hand is freezing cold. Oh, and snow everywhere.
Go figure.
Max
On Dec 5, 2009 1:32 PM, "Brian Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nick,
*sigh* I miss living there. When we moved to Houston we were told that
it snows like once every 10-20 years. This is my third year down here and
it's snowed three times. The latest was yesterday, from about 8am-6pm. Of
course two or three weeks ago we were high 80's so nothing stuck, but then
the temp dropped to 26 last night and probably caused some slick spots.
Next month I'm flying a Stearman and trying to figure out how to keep from
freezing with an 80mph wind in my face all the time. I imagine it'll
probably be similar to riding a motorcycle in the middle of winter. Stay
warm up there, Brian W.
------------------------------
From: info@flylightning.net
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out
I am reading all of this and all good points from all, see the voice has
not had to speak in this case. However I would like to point something out,
*It snowed last night here in TN and it is freakin cold!!!*
* *
Nick
------------------------------
*From:* owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *n1bzrich@aol.com
*Sent:* Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:30 AM
out
Doug,
Well stated, Doug, and outstanding advise. You remain a sage of down to
earth wisdom. Maybe because of your knowledge that sh*t goes downhill. ;-)
Buz
In a message dated 12/5/2009 9:45:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Kayberg@aol.com writes:.
> > This is more of a general response to Bill and others who are
considering trying more aggressiv...
*===========*
*ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com*
*m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com*
*"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com*
*tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
*====================================*
*t href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List*
*====================================*
*ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com*
*====================================*
* *
* *
* *
**
**
**
*www.aeroelectric.com*
*www.homebuilthelp.com*
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
*
ectric.com
">www.buildersbooks.combuilthelp.comww.matronics.com/contribution
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-Listonics.com
*
------------------------------
Windows LiveT Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever. Learn
more.<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_1:092009>
Please Support You...
Message 28
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 really appreciate the response. Thank you.
Brad
N1BZRich@aol.com wrote:
> Brad,
> I feel the same way you do that the majority of the 601XL problems
> were probably being caused by pilot input. Unfortunately, about four
> years ago I had talked our EAA chapter into buying a 601XL kit and
> building it as a chapter project. I was the technical counselor on
> the project and the guy that made sure it was built according to
> plans. The building process went well and all the chapter members
> involved learned a lot about acceptable aircraft building standards
> and reading blueprints, etc. When the airplane was completed, four
> guys in the chapter bought it, formed a LLC, and have put close to 300
> hours on it in the last 2 &1/2 years. I made the initial flights
> before turning it over to the owners (about 10 hours) and since then
> the owners have enjoyed it very much, but have only flown it well
> inside the stated performance envelop.
> Today the wings are coming off to get ready to accomplish the
> latest changes. I don't know how long it will take us to get all
> those changes accomplished, but the owners knew that in order to sell
> it in the future, the changes needed to be accomplished - not because
> they were worried about flying their aircraft.
> The point of this message is to let you know I understand what you
> are going through. You have probably already invested a lot of time
> into your project and now will be starting again. Bummer. But I also
> want you to know that looking at all the kits out there, you can't do
> any better than the Lightning if "time to build" is anywhere on your
> decision matrix. It is absolutely the best airplane out there that
> can meet the light sport requirements if that is also a part of your
> decision process.
> So good luck in your hunt for your next project and don't hesitate
> to contact me if you have any questions. I probably sound like I am
> on the Lighting payroll, but that is not the case. Heck, I don't even
> own one. I have flown lots of them and believe in their product and
> the people that made it happen. Good friends.
> Blue Skies,
> Buz
>
> In a message dated 12/5/2009 11:22:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rosestar@sonic.net writes:
>
>
> Doug's comments are very wise.
>
> I am one of those Zodiac owners. I am parting out my airplane for
> specific reasons.
>
> However, some of us pilots are aware of the conditions in which those
> airplanes were flown when they crashed...250# over gross, extreme
> high
> speed low pass, aggressive speeds in an airplane at 1200#. These are
> pilot issues. The point is that these LSA's are extremely light
> aircraft which are advertised to fly at 138 mph. In my opinion
> that is
> WAY over acceptable speeds for the aluminum airframes, and the
> tube and
> fabric airframes. What could have saved lives? Answer: prudent and
> conservative flying. These are not aerobatic airplanes. If someone
> wants to fly it aggressively, then they risk their own life, but also
> impact the future of other owners.
>
> Now...I am on this list because I am contemplating a purchase of a
> Lightening for its structural strength. But, I would not consider
> aerobatics in it.
>
> ("Sad") Brad
> former Zodiac builder/pilot. ======================== 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
> =================================================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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! --
|