 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilot(at)benjamindsmith.c
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
 |
|
I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying to get my mind wrapped
around the idea of building an airplane, and I've been lurking on a few lists
for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about 50/50 business/pleasure.
Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of importance:
A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign stall characteristics,
reliability, strong airframe construction with a "crash cage" a plus)
B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low materials cost, simple
construction)
C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to add IFR capability a strong
plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient airframes with good glideslopes -
If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much time before touchdown as
possible.
D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy looking?)
Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have lots in common:
A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design. The Long-EZ is notable in
that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual sense, if the CG is
anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice "crash cage" around the
cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build. (Lightning is considerably
easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper, both seem reasonable)
C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants, and claim amazing
glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both compare nicely with a Cessna
at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding IFR capability.
D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more extreme because of it's
vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the Lightning's more
classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more soothing to new
passengers.
So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on which one I might actually
consider getting behind. I'm interested in first-hand experience, as well
as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
Thanks,
Ben Smith
Private Pilot
--
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Hi Ben,
Welcome to the list. I think you will find everyone very friendly and anxious to help.
However, unless my memory is fading, and that could certainly be the case, I don't think the Long EZ kit is available any more. Rutan took all his kits off the market when he "went to work" for Beech designing the Starship. Beech lawyers didn't want anyone working for them that might be liable for other airplanes. But if you have found a kit from someone that needs to be completed, than I understand the question.
I have only flown one EZ (several times) many years ago, and it was a fun airplane that provided good performance and was economical to operate. It was owned by a fighter pilot buddy and we actually later flew some 1v1 ACM flights but of course it was not a fair fight because I was in my Pitts. Anyway, I would highly recommend the Lightning over the EZ for many reasons, but the one that would be over riding for me would be - landing speed.
-the EZ may be designed to be stall resistant or "hard to stall" but the landing speed of the EZ is way higher than the Lightning. Therefore, if you have to land off field you will hit the ground with much more speed and energy and the potential for damage will be much greater to the airframe and the pilot. I hate to mention it, but we lost a local EAA member recently when he tried to land his EZ engine out on a road and hit a small fence. Airplane and pilot were both a total loss.
-By the way, you can stall the EZ (I have done it) but it has to a high energy situation where you get the nose really high to start with. This should never happen in normal operations, so yes it is "stall resistant".
-Another reason I would chose the Lightning is you can easily operate out of grass strips. Not so the EZ. The takeoff roll and landing roll are already really long and grass would greatly increase that. I would hate to guess what the takeoff roll would be at gross on a hot day. The Lightning is going to be well under 1000' unless you are another Colorado builder. (How's it going, Mr. Colorado?)
-As you mentioned, the Lightning is much faster to build, but I want you to understand we are talking many more years for the EZ. One builder I know took about 15 to get his in the air. And since Rutan is no longer in the business, there is really no one to call with questions except other builders, If you know the builder and trust his knowledge and expertise, that is great, but if you are asking questions from an unknown resource, then "asker beware".
As for your A, B, C, and D comparison, I personally would give the Lightning the edge in all categories. However, depending on which engine you use in the EZ, you might cruise a little faster but your fuel burn will certainly be much higher as well.
I don't know where you live, but the ideal situation is to visit the guys in Shelbyville, Tennessee, and look over the kit. If you are near Virginia, I can get you up in N31BZ for sure, and possibly Linda's airplane as hers is IFR certified.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Benjamin-
Hope you consider 2 things: safety and re-sale. A
Lightning with a BRS system is safer than any plane
without a chute. A Long-EZ doesn't take a chute.
Re-sale: Cirrus has set the standard in re-sale
leadership due mostly to the CAPS whole airframe
parachute (they are also #1 in new plane sales). The
Lightning system has been endorsed and inspected by
BRS engineer Brent Ackley, as well as the rest of
their team, as being a top-notch install. The Long-EZ
is a cool plane, but so is the Lightning. I also
strongly considered the Velocity as well as the
Long-EZ b4 deciding on the Lightning. Everything about
the Lightning comes out ahead if you do the research
and do a line-by-line comparison with most other
comprable aircraft out there. Good luck with your
search.
Charles Dewey
-- Benjamin Smith <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
<pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com>
I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
to get my mind wrapped
around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
been lurking on a few lists
for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about
50/50 business/pleasure.
Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
importance:
A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
stall characteristics,
reliability, strong airframe construction with a
"crash cage" a plus)
B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low
materials cost, simple
construction)
C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
add IFR capability a strong
plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
airframes with good glideslopes -
If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much
time before touchdown as
possible.
D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
looking?)
Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have
lots in common:
A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
The Long-EZ is notable in
that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
sense, if the CG is
anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
"crash cage" around the
cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
(Lightning is considerably
easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper,
both seem reasonable)
C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
and claim amazing
glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both
compare nicely with a Cessna
at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding
IFR capability.
D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
extreme because of it's
vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
Lightning's more
classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more
soothing to new
passengers.
So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
which one I might actually
consider getting behind. I'm interested in
first-hand experience, as well
as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
Thanks,
Ben Smith
Private Pilot
--
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever
walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
browse
Un/Subscription,
FAQ,
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
Forums!
Admin.
|
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Another big difference is that a Lightning lands just like any other tricycle gear airplane, albeit a big slower than most. I find that the Long EZ is favored by jet pilots, largely due to a higher landing speed and flying a set angle of attack all the way to touchdown. You don't really flare an EZ on landing. I imagine this is largely the case with any canard airplane. I personally like the looks and performance of an EZ, but my money is still on the Lightning for the mission that you outlined. By the way Buz and Colorado dude, I flew a Lightning, with 2 people and some baggage out of Carlsbad NM, which I think is like 4,600 feet above sea level or so, and it was 105 degrees actual temp out and we may have went past 1,000 foot on the takeoff, but just barely if.
If you're just really set on the looks of a canard then go one up and try to find one of the Berkut kits that is around, if you can find it. It can have a TSIO 550 install and do around 300mph. Of course you're talking about a fast landing speed, much more cost on insurance due to speed, power, and retractable gear, and it drinks a lot of fuel, but it's also like a larger version of the Long EZ. Brian W.
| Quote: | Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:33:06 -0800
From: cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ?
To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com
--> Lightning-List message posted by: Charles Dewey <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>
Benjamin-
Hope you consider 2 things: safety and re-sale. A
Lightning with a BRS system is safer than any plane
without a chute. A Long-EZ doesn't take a chute.
Re-sale: Cirrus has set the standard in re-sale
leadership due mostly to the CAPS whole airframe
parachute (they are also #1 in new plane sales). The
Lightning system has been endorsed and inspected by
BRS engineer Brent Ackley, as well as the rest of
their team, as being a top-notch install. The Long-EZ
is a cool plane, but so is the Lightning. I also
strongly considered the Velocity as well as the
Long-EZ b4 deciding on the Lightning. Everything about
the Lightning comes out ahead if you do the research
and do a line-by-line comparison with most other
comprable aircraft out there. Good luck with your
search.
Charles Dewey
-- Benjamin Smith <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
> --> Lightning-List message posted by: Benjamin Smith
> <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com>
>
> I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
> to get my mind wrapped
> around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
> been lurking on a few lists
> for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about
> 50/50 business/pleasure.
> Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
> importance:
>
> A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
> stall characteristics,
> reliability, strong airframe construction with a
> "crash cage" a plus)
>
> B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low
> materials cost, simple
> construction)
>
> C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
> add IFR capability a strong
> plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
> airframes with good glideslopes -
> If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much
> time before touchdown as
> possible.
>
> D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
> looking?)
>
> Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have
> lots in common:
>
> A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
> The Long-EZ is notable in
> that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
> sense, if the CG is
> anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
> "crash cage" around the
> cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
>
> B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
> (Lightning is considerably
> easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper,
> both seem reasonable)
>
> C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
> and claim amazing
> glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both
> compare nicely with a Cessna
> at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding
> IFR capability.
>
> D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
> extreme because of it's
> vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
> Lightning's more
> classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more
> soothing to new
> passengers.
>
> So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
> which one I might actually
> consider getting behind. I'm interested in
> first-hand experience, as well
> as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben Smith
> Private Pilot
> --
> --
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever
> walk the earth with your
> eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
> there you will always long
> to return."
> -- Leonardo da Vinci
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
> Forums!
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Looking for last mi========================>
|
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your HotmailŪ-get your "fix". Check it out. [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sales(at)billandruth.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Benjamin,
One of the issues one should consider with a pusher configuration is the impact of stones and other objects kicked up by the nose wheel tire on the propellor. This is a factor and quite a while ago I was investigating a purchase of a Long-EZ and the owner confided in me that it came with an extra prop to replace the one that had been damaged due to this problem.
Another reason to pursue the Lightning as a purchase is the dynamic on-going effort to improve and enhance the design. Arion is not resting on its laurels as attested to by its decision to offer improvements and enhancements to the kit. Larger wing tanks, much improved panel along with a much simpler canopy frame are a couple of good examples of their recent efforts in this area. New wing tips are in the works and a longer wing and different ailerons to compliment the new wing design appear to be the next step. The Long-EZ is an interesting design but has no real internal baggage carrying capacity which limits cross country capability severely in my mind. That's not the case with the Lightning. You can easily carry a set skies or fishing poles in a modified baggage compartment inside a Lightning but, never in a Long-EZ.
Also, consider that if you build it you will be able to maintain it and will get it off the ground much faster than building a Long-EZ. Finally, where will you obtain tech support for your Long-EZ build?
Hope this info proves to be helpful. The problem in getting advice from a Lightning owner is that we are all biased toward ownership of the Lightning so you should consider that fact in your decision making process as well.
Bill in Tucson
Charles Dewey wrote:
[quote] | Quote: | --> Lightning-List message posted by: Charles Dewey <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> (cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com)
Benjamin-
Hope you consider 2 things: safety and re-sale. A
Lightning with a BRS system is safer than any plane
without a chute. A Long-EZ doesn't take a chute.
Re-sale: Cirrus has set the standard in re-sale
leadership due mostly to the CAPS whole airframe
parachute (they are also #1 in new plane sales). The
Lightning system has been endorsed and inspected by
BRS engineer Brent Ackley, as well as the rest of
their team, as being a top-notch install. The Long-EZ
is a cool plane, but so is the Lightning. I also
strongly considered the Velocity as well as the
Long-EZ b4 deciding on the Lightning. Everything about
the Lightning comes out ahead if you do the research
and do a line-by-line comparison with most other
comprable aircraft out there. Good luck with your
search.
Charles Dewey
-- Benjamin Smith <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> (pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com) wrote:
| Quote: | --> Lightning-List message posted by: Benjamin Smith
<pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> (pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com)
I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
to get my mind wrapped
around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
been lurking on a few lists
for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about
50/50 business/pleasure.
Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
importance:
A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
stall characteristics,
reliability, strong airframe construction with a
"crash cage" a plus)
B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low
materials cost, simple
construction)
C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
add IFR capability a strong
plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
airframes with good glideslopes -
If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much
time before touchdown as
possible.
D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
looking?)
Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have
lots in common:
A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
The Long-EZ is notable in
that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
sense, if the CG is
anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
"crash cage" around the
cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
(Lightning is considerably
easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper,
both seem reasonable)
C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
and claim amazing
glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both
compare nicely with a Cessna
at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding
IFR capability.
D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
extreme because of it's
vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
Lightning's more
classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more
soothing to new
passengers.
So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
which one I might actually
consider getting behind. I'm interested in
first-hand experience, as well
as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
Thanks,
Ben Smith
Private Pilot
--
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever
walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
browse
Un/Subscription,
FAQ,
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
Forums!
Admin.
|
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilot(at)benjamindsmith.c
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying to get my mind wrapped
around the idea of building an airplane, and I've been lurking on a few lists
for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about 50/50 business/pleasure.
Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of importance:
A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign stall characteristics,
reliability, strong airframe construction with a "crash cage" a plus)
B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low materials cost, simple
construction)
C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to add IFR capability a strong
plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient airframes with good glideslopes -
If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much time before touchdown as
possible.
D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy looking?)
Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have lots in common:
A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design. The Long-EZ is notable in
that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual sense, if the CG is
anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice "crash cage" around the
cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build. (Lightning is easier to build,
Long-EZ is cheaper, both seem reasonable)
C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants, and claim amazing
fuel efficiency and glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both compare
nicely with a Cessna at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding IFR
capability.
D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more extreme because of it's
vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the Lightning's more
classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more soothing to new
passengers.
So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on which one I might actually
consider getting behind. I'm interested in first-hand experience, as well
as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
Thanks,
Ben Smith
Private Pilot
--
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Ben-
You mention you want to take passengers with you. If
you take them on a flight of any distance, it is
really nice having them right next to you so you can
see them while you are talking. Tandem seating is not
ideal for taking passengers. Fly the Lightning- you
will be amazed at its fighter-like feel. There is no
other light plane like it. Charles
--- Benjamin Smith <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
<pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com>
I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
to get my mind wrapped
around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
been lurking on a few lists
for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about
50/50 business/pleasure.
Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
importance:
A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
stall characteristics,
reliability, strong airframe construction with a
"crash cage" a plus)
B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low
materials cost, simple
construction)
C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
add IFR capability a strong
plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
airframes with good glideslopes -
If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much
time before touchdown as
possible.
D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
looking?)
Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have
lots in common:
A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
The Long-EZ is notable in
that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
sense, if the CG is
anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
"crash cage" around the
cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
(Lightning is easier to build,
Long-EZ is cheaper, both seem reasonable)
C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
and claim amazing
fuel efficiency and glideslopes. Lightning 17:1,
Long EZ 18:1. Both compare
nicely with a Cessna at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a
good platform for adding IFR
capability.
D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
extreme because of it's
vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
Lightning's more
classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more
soothing to new
passengers.
So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
which one I might actually
consider getting behind. I'm interested in
first-hand experience, as well
as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
Thanks,
Ben Smith
Private Pilot
--
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever
walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
browse
Un/Subscription,
FAQ,
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
Forums!
Admin.
|
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lozhoffman(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Hi All,
Maybe I've been flying for too long but I'm not so
sure about the significance of stall speed to safety
in a way that many people might think. Primarily with
regard to the types of sport aircraft that we are
interested in.
By that I mean that I dont believe that a difference
of say 10-15% in stall speeds will be of much
consequence in critical situations. Would you agree
that we are really pretty much talking about a turn
back on early climbout after loss of power as the
principal scenario?
I'd argue that if the pilot doesnt have the rehearsed
self discipline acquire an appropriate approach
attitiude and to land ahead in a controlled crash when
there is insufficient height/speed to safely turn back
to the airfield, then a few knots lower stall speed
wont help much. Their situational awareness will still
be such that they are most likely going to lose it in
attempting to stretch the glide.
The greater significance relates to the reduced
landing and takeoff distance requirements afforded via
the lower stall speed... the greater range of options
for emergency landing areas afforded by the reduced
runway requirements which in itself is an enhancement
to safety.
Just my thoughts.
Laurie
Sydney
PS When can I expect to see that aircraft flying over
my place Peter?
--- Charles Dewey <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
<cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>
Ben-
You mention you want to take passengers with you.
If
you take them on a flight of any distance, it is
really nice having them right next to you so you can
see them while you are talking. Tandem seating is
not
ideal for taking passengers. Fly the Lightning- you
will be amazed at its fighter-like feel. There is no
other light plane like it. Charles
--- Benjamin Smith <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
>
Smith
> <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com>
>
> I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
> to get my mind wrapped
> around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
> been lurking on a few lists
> for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly
about
> 50/50 business/pleasure.
> Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
> importance:
>
> A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
> stall characteristics,
> reliability, strong airframe construction with a
> "crash cage" a plus)
>
> B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions,
low
> materials cost, simple
> construction)
>
> C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
> add IFR capability a strong
> plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
> airframes with good glideslopes -
> If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as
much
> time before touchdown as
> possible.
>
> D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
> looking?)
>
> Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they
have
> lots in common:
>
> A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
> The Long-EZ is notable in
> that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
> sense, if the CG is
> anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
> "crash cage" around the
> cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
>
> B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
> (Lightning is easier to build,
> Long-EZ is cheaper, both seem reasonable)
>
> C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
> and claim amazing
> fuel efficiency and glideslopes. Lightning 17:1,
> Long EZ 18:1. Both compare
> nicely with a Cessna at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a
> good platform for adding IFR
> capability.
>
> D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
> extreme because of it's
> vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
> Lightning's more
> classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit
more
> soothing to new
> passengers.
>
> So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
> which one I might actually
> consider getting behind. I'm interested in
> first-hand experience, as well
> as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben Smith
> Private Pilot
> --
> --
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will
forever
> walk the earth with your
> eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
> there you will always long
> to return."
> -- Leonardo da Vinci
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
> Forums!
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
|
Laurie
02 46531233
0425 703226
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
|
|
Laurie,
It is my thoughts that the stall speed is not the issue when people talk about LSA's. After all, we know that an aircraft will stall at only one speed, but it is the angle of attack that is fixed when it comes to a stall. One example, I stalled an airplane whose stall speed is 58 knots at over 90 the other day. I believe that the whole idea of requiring a low stall speed on LSA aircraft is taking safety into consideration. Many LSA pilots are either new to aviation or old. Both categories contain a lot of inexperienced pilots or at least unexperienced recently. If you require a low stall speed, then you are essentially saying that you are requiring a low speed approach. Things happen a lot slower at a 40 knot approach then say a small business jet with a 110 knot approach speed. Typically the approach speed is flown at 1.3 * Vso, or 1.5 * Vso. (1.5 is often used for prototype aircraft where the stall speed is unknown. In place of Vso, the minimum unstuck or takeoff speed is used) Also, in the event that an "off airfield excursion" takes place, it is much less likely to end fatally the slower you go. We did a stall series in N323AL where we recorded I think it was 30 degrees of flaps and an average of 29 knot stall speed, without vortex generators. I would say that you'd have a hard time finding an aircraft capable of the wide speed range of the Lightning, especially in a low wing aircraft. If you look at the profile of the wing on the Lightning, it is thick, but it is a good planform that gives good L/D characteristics. Brian W.
| Quote: | Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:49:29 -0800
From: lozhoffman(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ?
To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com
--> Lightning-List message posted by: Laurie Hoffman <lozhoffman(at)yahoo.com>
Hi All,
Maybe I've been flying for too long but I'm not so
sure about the significance of stall speed to safety
in a way that many people might think. Primarily with
regard to the types of sport aircraft that we are
interested in.
By that I mean that I dont believe that a difference
of say 10-15% in stall speeds will be of much
consequence in critical situations. Would you agree
that we are really pretty much talking about a turn
back on early climbout after loss of power as the
principal scenario?
I'd argue that if the pilot doesnt have the rehearsed
self discipline acquire an appropriate approach
attitiude and to land ahead in a controlled crash when
there is insufficient height/speed to safely turn back
to the airfield, then a few knots lower stall speed
wont help much. Their situational awareness will still
be such that they are most likely going to lose it in
attempting to stretch the glide.
The greater significance relates to the reduced
landing and takeoff distance requirements afforded via
the lower stall speed... the greater range of options
for emergency landing areas afforded by the reduced
runway requirements which in itself is an enhancement
to safety.
Just my thoughts.
Laurie
Sydney
PS When can I expect to see that aircraft flying over
my place Peter?
--- Charles Dewey <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Lightning-List message posted by: Charles Dewey
> <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>
>
>
> Ben-
> You mention you want to take passengers with you.
> If
> you take them on a flight of any distance, it is
> really nice having them right next to you so you can
> see them while you are talking. Tandem seating is
> not
> ideal for taking passengers. Fly the Lightning- you
> will be amazed at its fighter-like feel. There is no
> other light plane like it. Charles
>
>
> --- Benjamin Smith <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
>
> > --> Lightning-List message posted by: Benjamin
> Smith
> > <pilot(at)benjamindsmith.com>
> >
> > I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
> > to get my mind wrapped
> > around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
> > been lurking on a few lists
> > for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly
> about
> > 50/50 business/pleasure.
> > Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
> > importance:
> >
> > A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
> > stall characteristics,
> > reliability, strong airframe construction with a
> > "crash cage" a plus)
> >
> > B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions,
> low
> > materials cost, simple
> > construction)
> >
> > C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
> > add IFR capability a strong
> > plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
> > airframes with good glideslopes -
> > If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as
> much
> > time before touchdown as
> > possible.
> >
> > D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
> > looking?)
> >
> > Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they
> have
> > lots in common:
> >
> > A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
> > The Long-EZ is notable in
> > that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
> > sense, if the CG is
> > anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
> > "crash cage" around the
> > cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
> >
> > B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
> > (Lightning is easier to build,
> > Long-EZ is cheaper, both seem reasonable)
> >
> > C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
> > and claim amazing
> > fuel efficiency and glideslopes. Lightning 17:1,
> > Long EZ 18:1. Both compare
> > nicely with a Cessna at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a
> > good platform for adding IFR
> > capability.
> >
> > D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
> > extreme because of it's
> > vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
> > Lightning's more
> > classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit
> more
> > soothing to new
> > passengers.
> >
> > So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
> > which one I might actually
> > consider getting behind. I'm interested in
> > first-hand experience, as well
> > as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben Smith
> > Private Pilot
> > --
> > --
> > "When once you have tasted flight, you will
> forever
> > walk the earth with your
> > eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
> > there you will always long
> > to return."
> > -- Leonardo da Vinci
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Un/Subscription,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> >
> > Forums!
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
> Forums!
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Laurie
02 46531233
0425 703226
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;==============
|
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more. [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
