---------------------------------------------------------- Lightning-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/05/09: 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:00 AM PST US From: N1BZRich@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:14 AM PST US From: EAFerguson@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:45 AM PST US 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, 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:47:14 AM PST US From: Brian Whittingham Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:04 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out From: "Bill Strahan" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:00:31 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Spin test profiles for Lightning SLSA certification From: "Bill Strahan" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:22:25 AM PST US From: Rosalie Subject: Lightning-List: Bailing Out 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:27:22 AM PST US From: n1bzrich@aol.com 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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:18 AM PST US From: n1bzrich@aol.com 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:40:54 AM PST US From: n1bzrich@aol.com 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:00 AM PST US From: Rick Bowen Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:51 AM PST US From: Rosalie Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:14 AM PST US From: "flylightning" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:05 AM PST US From: N1BZRich@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:50 AM PST US From: N1BZRich@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Bailing Out 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:09 AM PST US From: N1BZRich@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:35:25 AM PST US From: "Jack Gonzenbach" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:05 AM PST US From: IFLYSMODEL@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:18 AM PST US From: N1BZRich@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:57 AM PST US From: Rick Bowen Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:39 AM PST US From: Kayberg@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:45:06 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Autopilot 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:56:08 AM PST US From: "JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:26:37 AM PST US From: Brian Whittingham Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:30:47 AM PST US From: Brian Whittingham Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:31:15 AM PST US From: Brian Whittingham Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:28 AM PST US Subject: Re: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Bailing out From: Maxim Voronin 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" 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. Please Support You... ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 04:57:49 PM PST US From: Rosalie Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Bailing Out 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message lightning-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Lightning-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/lightning-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/lightning-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.