Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Bailing out
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Bill Strahan

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 145

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: Bailing out

My parachute should be delivered on Wednesday of next week.  One of the things that I want to use it for is spin testing of my Lightning.



For the record, I like spins.  But, I have no experience spinning the Lightning and every time I've spun an airplane for the first time I've worn a chute.  But having a chute is only useful if you have a safe way of exiting the airplane.



In a 150 aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress.  Every other plane I've spun had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.



Anyway, I've been thinking about this issue in the Lightning.  I've opened the canopy in flight, and have found that it takes quite a shove to get it to go very far at all.  In fact, more shove than I'll apply unless it's an emergency because I am concerned I would do damage.



I tend towards the belief that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY needed to.  I've imagined laying on my back and trying to kick the canopy out, but that leads to images of the canopy cracking outwards, only to trap my foot in it.  Now THAT would be a strange NTSB report.  



Any opinions on what the failure mode would be if I rolled onto my back and tried to kick the canopy out?  (Please don't say my legs.  I'm deadlifting 450 and squatting 350.<grin>)



I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge for the canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that would pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting under the panel on the copilot side where both cables would attach to a handle.  A hard yank on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope the front of the canopy would lift off and temporarily pivot around the canopy latch before departing the plane.  I'd be ducking below the panel regardless at that point.  If I take this route, I'll replace the bolts when I'm done with my sillyness.



Any other thoughts from the Jet Jockeys out there?



Bill

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: Bailing out

In a message dated 12/3/2009 5:42:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan"    <bill(at)gdsx.com>



My parachute should be delivered on Wednesday of    next week.  One of the things that I want to use it for is spin testing    of my Lightning.



For the record, I like spins.  But, I have no    experience spinning the Lightning and every time I've spun an airplane for the    first time I've worn a chute.  But having a chute is only useful if you    have a safe way of exiting the airplane.



In a 150 aerobat the doors can    be ejected for egress.  Every other plane I've spun had either a sliding    canopy or an open cockpit.



Anyway, I've been thinking about this issue    in the Lightning.  I've opened the canopy in flight, and have found that    it takes quite a shove to get it to go very far at all.  In fact, more    shove than I'll apply unless it's an emergency because I am concerned I would    do damage.



I tend towards the belief that I would get out of the plane    if I REALLY needed to.  I've imagined laying on my back and trying to    kick the canopy out, but that leads to images of the canopy cracking outwards,    only to trap my foot in it.  Now THAT would be a strange NTSB    report.  



Any opinions on what the failure mode would be if I    rolled onto my back and tried to kick the canopy out?  (Please don't say    my legs.  I'm deadlifting 450 and squatting 350.)



I've also    considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge for the canopy and    replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that would pivot 90    degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting under the panel on    the copilot side where both cables would attach to a handle.  A hard yank    on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope the front of the canopy    would lift off and temporarily pivot around the canopy latch before departing    the plane.  I'd be ducking below the panel regardless at that    point.  If I take this route, I'll replace the bolts when I'm done with    my sillyness.



Any other thoughts from the Jet Jockeys out    there?



Bill





Read this topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056===============================================

_nbsp;             (And Get Some AWESOME FREE     to find   Gifts  tric  re  b  k you for  p;                        -Matt Dralle,    List  ========================   Use the  ties  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ==================================================



	


  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: Bailing out

Bill,    

     Last spring (late March and early  April) I flew all the ASTM required flight test profiles (including all the  spin test) to get the Lightning certified as a SLSA.  The spin test flights  were all flown in the prototype Lightning since it had a ballistic parachute  installed.  The other flights were flown in the silver demo  Lightning.  Nick and I had many long discussions about bailing out of the  Lightning and ways to jettison the canopy.  We basically decided that in an  out of control situation, trying to force the canopy open and climbing out while  the aircraft was spinning was not a real good option.  (Flat spins can be  amazingly fast) Nick even tried to get some explosive bolts so that we could  jettison the canopy, but the regulations required to even buy the explosive  bolts made that option unworkable in a reasonable time frame.  So that is  why I flew the spin test in the prototype.  If things went wrong, I would  use the whole aircraft ballistic chute.  Didn't even wear the chute I owned  for the Pitts,  So your idea of having pins to pull that would allow you to  get rid of the canopy might be a good option  if you can work it out.  We didn't really work on that  option because of the ballistic chute option we had.  Note:  If you  make this type of change to your Lightning, you will have to put it back into  phase one testing and who knows how many hours your FAA rep might require.   

  

 Up to this past March/April, this was the first time the long wing  Lightning had been spun.  Nick had previously spun the original short wing  with no problems, but not the long wing.  ASTM requirements were for the  light sport compliant airplane to be spun at all CG ranges and all  configurations.  From lots of previous flights in many different  Lightnings with the long wing, I was not really concerned with possible spiral  instability, but the requirement to spin at full flaps did concern me quite a  bit since from lots of previous spin experience in the military and in numerous  aerobatic aircraft, I knew that flaps would tend to make the spin go flat.   One other thing - ASTM requirements were not for a fully developed spin - you  could apply anti spin controls during the incipient phase of the developing  spin, or to be more specific, the rules allowed me to apply anti spin controls  at either 3 seconds of spin or 1 turn - whichever came first.  And that is  exactly what I did, particularly for the first spins at full aft CG and  certainly with the flaps down.  It recovered, but not at quickly as the  normal clean spin situation.  

  

 I have a copy of all the written flight test results somewhere on my  computer and will look for the spin test flights and (with Nick's  permission) will post a copy of the spin test on the list, or maybe in  the newsletter.  (What say you, Nick?)  

  

 Basically, the clean spin characteristics were excellent  for forward CGs and good for aft CGs and recovery was almost immediate as  soon as I unloaded the airplane.  Clean and aft CG were not quite as quick  to stop, but not abnormal at all.  Spins with flaps were much more a  concern, but standard anti spin controls were effective, but took some  time.  Don't try spins with flaps.  

  

 So if you are going to spin, AND I SEE NO REASON TO DO THAT - THE  LIGHTNING FLIGHT MANUAL SAYS NO AEROBATICS AND NO INTENTIONAL SPINS,  but if you really must (will your insurance be valid if you are doing something  not approved in the POH?) only do so with no flaps deployed and a forward  CG.  Use idle power and normal pro spin controls.   Once you get  the break - unload and opposite rudder to stop the turn (normal anti spin  controls).  I started all my spin test at 8,000.  



 Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to at least hit the highlights of the  story.  I guess, my bottom line would be like I said above - I see no  reason to spin an airplane that the flight manual (Pilot's Operating Handbook)  says is not aerobatic and no intentional spins.  I have no idea how  experienced you are in spins, but I have seen them go flat or even inverted when  they should not have.  There are just a lot of variables that you really  can't always plan for.  All airplanes are different, especially those built  by individuals from a kit.  What I saw the prototype do, might not be what  you see your airplane do.  Oh, another thing, have you jumped before or  gone through that type of training?  Can you find the D ring in an OH SHIT  emergency?  There really are a lot of things to think about before you make  the final decision to do this.  I don't want this to sound negative, but  just want you to think about all the negative possibilities.

 Blue Skies,

 Buz

   

  

 In a message dated 12/3/2009 5:42:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan"    <bill(at)gdsx.com>

. er to My parachute should be delivered on    Wednesday of next week.  One of the things that I want to use it for is    spin testing of my Lightning.



For the record, I like spins.  But,    I have no experience spinning the Lightning and every time I've spun an    airplane for the first time I've worn a chute.  But having a chute is    only useful if you have a safe way of exiting the airplane.



In a 150    aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress.  Every other plane I've spun    had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.



Anyway, I've been    thinking about this issue in the Lightning.  I've opened the canopy in    flight, and have found that it takes quite a shove to get it to go very far at    all.  In fact, more shove than I'll apply unless it's an emergency    because I am concerned I would do damage.



I tend towards the belief    that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY needed to.  I've imagined    laying on my back and trying to kick the canopy out, but that leads to images    of the canopy cracking outwards, only to trap my foot in it.  Now THAT    would be a strange NTSB report.  



Any opinions on what the failure    mode would be if I rolled onto my back and tried to kick the canopy out?     (Please don't say my legs.  I'm deadlifting 450 and squatting    350.)



I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge    for the canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that    would pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting    under the panel on the copilot side where both cables would attach to a    handle.  A hard yank on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope    the front of the canopy would lift off and temporarily pivot around the canopy    latch before departing the plane.  I'd be ducking below the panel    regardless at that point.  If I take this route, I'll replace the bolts    when I'm done with my sillyness.



Any other thoughts from the Jet    Jockeys out there?



Bill





Read this topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056===============================================

_nbsp;             (And Get Some AWESOME FREE     to find   Gifts  tric  re  b  k you for  p;                        -Matt Dralle,    List  ========================   Use the  ties  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ==================================================



	


  [quote][b]

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:31 am Post subject: Bailing out

I will look and see if I can find a video of this later C but I remember seeing a two camera view of an aerobatic aircraft demonstrating loss of SA during a spin that went flat and then inverted.  In the cockpit there was a brief pause and it was nearly imperceptible when it transitioned to inverted.  If you didn't know that you were then in an inverted spin and applied your normal anti-spin controls in the same direction as before then you are tightening your spin.



Also something to think about is the force that a spin can put on your body.  Definitely wouldn't count on being able to kick out the canopy C much less even being able to push it out.  There are many stories of guys trying to bail out of planes and the best they ever did was to wiggle around until they could unbuckle and then they were thrown clear of the plane C sometimes colliding with the plane on the way down and doing some bodily harm.  I had talked a little with Buz and Nick about designing a quick release canopy.  There is one that is used for air racing for the Lancair which makes the canopy a rear hinged variety.  A few things bother me about this though.  I remember reading about I believe it was the F-86's that were loosing canopies in flight.  The way that they were loosing them turned out to be somebody installing screws upside down.  This was allowing the canopy to come off and twist which was making the pilots loose their heads C literally.  If I were going to design the canopy to fly free without taking my head off I might do what some of the Russian ejection seats do C which deploy small vanes and turn it in a favorable direction (up) and keep it tracking a straight line.  Most people don't have the ability to thoroughly test something like that on their own though.  

Another thing that worries me is what will happen when the canopy is off.  We don't know what the Lightning would do.  We do know what an Esqual will do and it's not a good thing.  If you're then in a spin and need to clear it C does it increase the loading and tightening of the spin?  It could be that you find yourself incapacitated.  I believe the ultimate limit load factor for the Lightning was around 10G's.  Now this isn't the operational limit load factor C I'm talking about the observed failure load factor.  I'm willing to bet that most people can't take about half of that for very long without becoming incapacitated in some way.  If you look at any books on flight testing they will tell you that spin testing must be approached very carefully as there's a higher than normal chance of loosing your aircraft and possibly loosing your life.  Just a few of my own thoughts.  Brian W.



From: N1BZRich(at)aol.com

Date: Thu C 3 Dec 2009 23:09:09 -0500

Subject: Re: Bailing out

To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com



       Bill C    

     Last spring (late March and early  April) I flew all the ASTM required flight test profiles (including all the  spin test) to get the Lightning certified as a SLSA.  The spin test flights  were all flown in the prototype Lightning since it had a ballistic parachute  installed.  The other flights were flown in the silver demo  Lightning.  Nick and I had many long discussions about bailing out of the  Lightning and ways to jettison the canopy.  We basically decided that in an  out of control situation C trying to force the canopy open and climbing out while  the aircraft was spinning was not a real good option.  (Flat spins can be  amazingly fast) Nick even tried to get some explosive bolts so that we could  jettison the canopy C but the regulations required to even buy the explosive  bolts made that option unworkable in a reasonable time frame.  So that is  why I flew the spin test in the prototype.  If things went wrong C I would  use the whole aircraft ballistic chute.  Didn't even wear the chute I owned  for the Pitts C  So your idea of having pins to pull that would allow you to  get rid of the canopy might be a good option  if you can work it out.  We didn't really work on that  option because of the ballistic chute option we had.  Note:  If you  make this type of change to your Lightning C you will have to put it back into  phase one testing and who knows how many hours your FAA rep might require.   

  

 Up to this past March/April C this was the first time the long wing  Lightning had been spun.  Nick had previously spun the original short wing  with no problems C but not the long wing.  ASTM requirements were for the  light sport compliant airplane to be spun at all CG ranges and all  configurations.  From lots of previous flights in many different  Lightnings with the long wing C I was not really concerned with possible spiral  instability C but the requirement to spin at full flaps did concern me quite a  bit since from lots of previous spin experience in the military and in numerous  aerobatic aircraft C I knew that flaps would tend to make the spin go flat.   One other thing - ASTM requirements were not for a fully developed spin - you  could apply anti spin controls during the incipient phase of the developing  spin C or to be more specific C the rules allowed me to apply anti spin controls  at either 3 seconds of spin or 1 turn - whichever came first.  And that is  exactly what I did C particularly for the first spins at full aft CG and  certainly with the flaps down.  It recovered C but not at quickly as the  normal clean spin situation.  

  

 I have a copy of all the written flight test results somewhere on my  computer and will look for the spin test flights and (with Nick's  permission) will post a copy of the spin test on the list C or maybe in  the newsletter.  (What say you C Nick?)  

  

 Basically C the clean spin characteristics were excellent  for forward CGs and good for aft CGs and recovery was almost immediate as  soon as I unloaded the airplane.  Clean and aft CG were not quite as quick  to stop C but not abnormal at all.  Spins with flaps were much more a  concern C but standard anti spin controls were effective C but took some  time.  Don't try spins with flaps.  

  

 So if you are going to spin C AND I SEE NO REASON TO DO THAT - THE  LIGHTNING FLIGHT MANUAL SAYS NO AEROBATICS AND NO INTENTIONAL SPINS C  but if you really must (will your insurance be valid if you are doing something  not approved in the POH?) only do so with no flaps deployed and a forward  CG.  Use idle power and normal pro spin controls.   Once you get  the break - unload and opposite rudder to stop the turn (normal anti spin  controls).  I started all my spin test at 8 C000.  



 Sorry this is so long C but I wanted to at least hit the highlights of the  story.  I guess C my bottom line would be like I said above - I see no  reason to spin an airplane that the flight manual (Pilot's Operating Handbook)  says is not aerobatic and no intentional spins.  I have no idea how  experienced you are in spins C but I have seen them go flat or even inverted when  they should not have.  There are just a lot of variables that you really  can't always plan for.  All airplanes are different C especially those built  by individuals from a kit.  What I saw the prototype do C might not be what  you see your airplane do.  Oh C another thing C have you jumped before or  gone through that type of training?  Can you find the D ring in an OH SHIT  emergency?  There really are a lot of things to think about before you make  the final decision to do this.  I don't want this to sound negative C but  just want you to think about all the negative possibilities.

 Blue Skies C

 Buz

   

  

 In a message dated 12/3/2009 5:42:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time C  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan"    <bill(at)gdsx.com>

. er to My parachute should be delivered on    Wednesday of next week.  One of the things that I want to use it for is    spin testing of my Lightning.



For the record C I like spins.  But C    I have no experience spinning the Lightning and every time I've spun an    airplane for the first time I've worn a chute.  But having a chute is    only useful if you have a safe way of exiting the airplane.



In a 150    aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress.  Every other plane I've spun    had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.



Anyway C I've been    thinking about this issue in the Lightning.  I've opened the canopy in    flight C and have found that it takes quite a shove to get it to go very far at    all.  In fact C more shove than I'll apply unless it's an emergency    because I am concerned I would do damage.



I tend towards the belief    that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY needed to.  I've imagined    laying on my back and trying to kick the canopy out C but that leads to images    of the canopy cracking outwards C only to trap my foot in it.  Now THAT    would be a strange NTSB report.  



Any opinions on what the failure    mode would be if I rolled onto my back and tried to kick the canopy out?     (Please don't say my legs.  I'm deadlifting 450 and squatting    350.)



I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge    for the canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that    would pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting    under the panel on the copilot side where both cables would attach to a    handle.  A hard yank on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope    the front of the canopy would lift off and temporarily pivot around the canopy    latch before departing the plane.  I'd be ducking below the panel    regardless at that point.  If I take this route C I'll replace the bolts    when I'm done with my sillyness.



Any other thoughts from the Jet    Jockeys out there?



Bill





Read this topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056======================

_nbsp;             (And Get Some AWESOME FREE     to find   Gifts  tric  re  b  k you for  p;                        -Matt Dralle C    List  ========================   Use the  ties  Day  =======================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  



	


   	  Quote: 	
		  



ectric.com

">www.buildersbooks.com

builthelp.com

ww.matronics.com/contribution

st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List

onics.com



	


 		 	   		  Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox. Check it out  [quote][b]

info(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:13 am Post subject: Bailing out

Buz,  

   

I do not mind you posting the Spin test report or cards. I think it will be informative.  

   

Nick  

         

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N1BZRich(at)aol.com

 Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:09 PM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Bailing out  

  

     

Bill,      

    

    Last spring (late March and early April) I flew all the ASTM required flight test profiles (including all the spin test) to get the Lightning certified as a SLSA.  The spin test flights were all flown in the prototype Lightning since it had a ballistic parachute installed.  The other flights were flown in the silver demo Lightning.  Nick and I had many long discussions about bailing out of the Lightning and ways to jettison the canopy.  We basically decided that in an out of control situation, trying to force the canopy open and climbing out while the aircraft was spinning was not a real good option.  (Flat spins can be amazingly fast) Nick even tried to get some explosive bolts so that we could jettison the canopy, but the regulations required to even buy the explosive bolts made that option unworkable in a reasonable time frame.  So that is why I flew the spin test in the prototype.  If things went wrong, I would use the whole aircraft ballistic chute.  Didn't even wear the chute I owned for the Pitts,  So your idea of having pins to pull that would allow you to get rid of the canopy [b]might[/b] be a good option [b]if[/b] you can work it out.  We didn't really work on that option because of the ballistic chute option we had.  Note:  If you make this type of change to your Lightning, you will have to put it back into phase one testing and who knows how many hours your FAA rep might require.    

    

   

    

Up to this past March/April, this was the first time the long wing Lightning had been spun.  Nick had previously spun the original short wing with no problems, but not the long wing.  ASTM requirements were for the light sport compliant airplane to be spun at [b]all CG ranges and all configurations[/b].  >From lots of previous flights in many different Lightnings with the long wing, I was not really concerned with possible spiral instability, but the requirement to spin at full flaps did concern me quite a bit since from lots of previous spin experience in the military and in numerous aerobatic aircraft, I knew that flaps would tend to make the spin go flat.  One other thing - ASTM requirements were not for a fully developed spin - you could apply anti spin controls during the incipient phase of the developing spin, or to be more specific, the rules allowed me to apply anti spin controls at either 3 seconds of spin or 1 turn - whichever came first.  And that is exactly what I did, particularly for the first spins at full aft CG and certainly with the flaps down.  It recovered, but not at quickly as the normal clean spin situation.    

    

   

    

I have a copy of all the written flight test results somewhere on my computer and will look for the spin test flights and [b](with Nick's permission)[/b] will post a copy of the spin test on the list, or maybe in the newsletter.  (What say you, Nick?)    

    

   

    

Basically, the [b]clean spin characteristics[/b] were excellent for forward CGs and good for aft CGs and recovery was almost immediate as soon as I unloaded the airplane.  Clean and aft CG were not quite as quick to stop, but not abnormal at all.  Spins with flaps were much more a concern, but standard anti spin controls were effective, but took some time.  Don't try spins with flaps.    

    

   

    

So if you are going to spin, [b]AND I SEE NO REASON TO DO THAT - THE LIGHTNING FLIGHT MANUAL SAYS NO AEROBATICS AND NO INTENTIONAL SPINS[/b], but if you really must (will your insurance be valid if you are doing something not approved in the POH?) only do so with no flaps deployed and a forward CG.  Use idle power and normal pro spin controls.   Once you get the break - unload and opposite rudder to stop the turn (normal anti spin controls).  I started all my spin test at 8,000.    

    

Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to at least hit the highlights of the story.  I guess, my bottom line would be like I said above - I see no reason to spin an airplane that the flight manual (Pilot's Operating Handbook) says is not aerobatic and no intentional spins.  I have no idea how experienced you are in spins, but I have seen them go flat or even inverted when they should not have.  There are just a lot of variables that you really can't always plan for.  All airplanes are different, especially those built by individuals from a kit.  What I saw the prototype do, might not be what you see your airplane do.  Oh, another thing, have you jumped before or gone through that type of training?  Can you find the D ring in an OH SHIT emergency?  There really are a lot of things to think about before you make the final decision to do this.  I don't want this to sound negative, but just want you to think about all the negative possibilities.  

    

Blue Skies,  

    

Buz  

      

   

    

   

    

In a message dated 12/3/2009 5:42:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bill(at)gdsx.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan" <bill(at)gdsx.com>

 . er to My parachute should be delivered on Wednesday of next week.  One of the things that I want to use it for is spin testing of my Lightning.

 

 For the record, I like spins.  But, I have no experience spinning the Lightning and every time I've spun an airplane for the first time I've worn a chute.  But having a chute is only useful if you have a safe way of exiting the airplane.

 

 In a 150 aerobat the doors can be ejected for egress.  Every other plane I've spun had either a sliding canopy or an open cockpit.

 

 Anyway, I've been thinking about this issue in the Lightning.  I've opened the canopy in flight, and have found that it takes quite a shove to get it to go very far at all.  In fact, more shove than I'll apply unless it's an emergency because I am concerned I would do damage.

 

 I tend towards the belief that I would get out of the plane if I REALLY needed to.  I've imagined laying on my back and trying to kick the canopy out, but that leads to images of the canopy cracking outwards, only to trap my foot in it.  Now THAT would be a strange NTSB report.  

 

 Any opinions on what the failure mode would be if I rolled onto my back and tried to kick the canopy out?  (Please don't say my legs.  I'm deadlifting 450 and squatting 350.)

 

 I've also considered removing the bolts that provide the hinge for the canopy and replacing them each with a pin welded to a steel cable that would pivot 90 degrees around a point aligned with the pin before exiting under the panel on the copilot side where both cables would attach to a handle.  A hard yank on that handle should pull both pins out and I hope the front of the canopy would lift off and temporarily pivot around the canopy latch before departing the plane.  I'd be ducking below the panel regardless at that point.  If I take this route, I'll replace the bolts when I'm done with my sillyness.

 

 Any other thoughts from the Jet Jockeys out there?

 

 Bill

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276056#276056======================

 _nbsp;          (And Get Some AWESOME FREE to find Gifts tric re b k you for p;                     -Matt Dralle, List ======================== Use the ties Day =======================              - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS 

 

 

     www.aeroelectric.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  	
8

        [quote][b]

Bill Strahan

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 145

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out

Buz,



Valid concerns and I appreciate all the input.  What's a D ring?  



Just kidding.  Back when I started flying aerobatics I decided to do the initial training for an accelerated freefall license and make at least the first jump.  If I ever had to bail out I didn't want that to be my introduction to parachute use as well!



Once I did that, I had a much better comfort level with how things might be if I ever needed to use the emergency chute.



It's probably more for me and my curiousity than anything.  And it's not just spin training.  I want to take the plane to VNE, and test it to 5g at gross.  Every plane is different, and I will achieve peace of mind from feeling that my plane is proven in these areas.  



As to the POH, my understanding is that I am the author of the POH for my plane since it is experimental, not LSA.  My operating limitations on the other hand are clear.  I will be talking to my FSDO about that prior to any spins and as you point out will have to have those limitations changed.



After I'm done, I can change them again to be more restrictive and/or I can put the restrictions in the POH.  Is this how you understand it?



Bill

max.givan(at)ngc.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:01 am Post subject: Bailing out

Bill



Sounds like you are experienced in this type of testing and may be very

comfortable doing this. Don't really know your background. Just a few

thoughts.



I design tactical military aircraft for a living and I am very

experienced in aircraft spin analysis and departure/spin flight test. I

am also an experienced pilot and I would not deliberately spin a

previously untested aircraft without a lot of high angle of attack wind

tunnel data and detailed analytic spin analysis and simulation time

histories. Also there are wind tunnels which flow vertically and allow

models to be spun in the tunnel and spin characteristics evaluated. An

acceptable Plan B would be to add a well designed spin chute on the

aircraft. This is NOT one of the off the shelf ballistic chutes

currently available. A spin recovery chute is custom designed and

typically has much longer risers and sturdy construction. 



Having said all that, I will be very interested in your results if you

go forward with your spin testing.  



Max



--

voroninmax(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: Bailing out

Bill,



Quick question - did you go through the whole AFF or just the beginning of it? If just the later - towards the end of the course you are specifically required to do "hop-and-pop" jumps to introduce yourself to the lower altitude exits and deployment, as those are psychologically different.

 In any event, I would not count on using a chute in a plane that is a tip-up design and doesn't have a canopy release.

Best regards,



Max



On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Bill Strahan <bill(at)gdsx.com (bill(at)gdsx.com)> wrote:

 [quote]--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan" <bill(at)gdsx.com (bill(at)gdsx.com)>

  

 Buz,

 

 Valid concerns and I appreciate all the input.  What's a D ring?  

 

 Just kidding.  Back when I started flying aerobatics I decided to do the initial training for an accelerated freefall license and make at least the first jump.  If I ever had to bail out I didn't want that to be my introduction to parachute use as well!

  

 Once I did that, I had a much better comfort level with how things might be if I ever needed to use the emergency chute.

 

 It's probably more for me and my curiousity than anything.  And it's not just spin training.  I want to take the plane to VNE, and test it to 5g at gross.  Every plane is different, and I will achieve peace of mind from feeling that my plane is proven in these areas.

  

 As to the POH, my understanding is that I am the author of the POH for my plane since it is experimental, not LSA.  My operating limitations on the other hand are clear.  I will be talking to my FSDO about that prior to any spins and as you point out will have to have those limitations changed.

  

 After I'm done, I can change them again to be more restrictive and/or I can put the restrictions in the POH.  Is this how you understand it?

 

 Bill

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276149#276149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com

 ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 le, List Admin.

 ===========

 st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: Bailing out

In a message dated 12/4/2009 10:04:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Bill Strahan" bill(at)gdsx.com (bill(at)gdsx.com)

Buz,

Valid concerns and I    appreciate all the input.  What's a D ring?  	
  Hey Bill, I like you sense of humor - the D ring comment.

 .  

 And yes, the builder is responsible for writing the POH for the airplane he  builds.  In the case of the Lightning, they provide a good one that  only needs the performance section filled out once you have completed  your Phase one testing and have those numbers and that data to put in  the POH performance section.  This is once again, because all kit built  aircraft can be slightly different.  But I agree that during phase  one every builder should be testing his aircraft to verify all the  numbers and performance data.  Too many builders really don't test  their airplanes - they just fly off the 40 hours without ever really knowing  their "jets" real stall speeds, real V numbers, flutter test, max gross  weight test, etc., etc.    

  

 But do remember that the Lightning kit was sold as being non aerobatic  and no intentional spins. You have probably already guessed one of the  reason why - the canopy, and of course the extra liability. Anyway, if you  do decide to do your own spins, do talk to your FSDO (and insurance  company) about the limitations.  Follow the recommendations I mentioned  yesterday (no flaps, idle power, forward CG and then after no more than one turn  or 3 seconds (whichever comes first), apply standard anti spin controls).   But don't do that on test number one - work your way up to the full turn or 3  seconds.  Baby steps - kind of like Max was suggesting.  

  

  Let me add one other critical thing I didn't mention yesterday - be  sure the ailerons are centered.  If they are not, the tendency to  accelerate or go flat is great.  One trick I picked up when spin testing a  new airplane is to actually put a bright piece of tape on the instrument panel  that is exactly in front of the stick when the ailerons are neutral.  You  will be surprised at how many airplanes are enough out of rig so that with  neutral stick you actually have roll command to one side or the other.  So  center the ailerons and then mark the panel with bright yellow tape where the  stick is when the ailerons are centered.  It also gives you an "aiming"  mark on upright spins as to where to push the stick when you want to  unload.  When I was flying competition in my Pitts, I used a similar  technique for lomcevaks.  

  

 I was able to find the flight test write ups from when I was doing the ASTM  certification flights for the Special Light Sport Lightning and will send them  out either later tonight or tomorrow.  Just remember that the two spin  tests flight profiles were just two of 25 different flight tests that were  required.  Many flights went before the spins that allowed me to verify  certain flight characteristics before actually doing the spin tests.   Again, kind of like Max was suggesting.  One other thing I didn't mention  yesterday was the thinking through all the maneuvers and test flights before  actually going up to fly them.  For one thing, it helps you be more  efficient in the air with the time, but it also allows you to think through the  various scenarios of things that may go wrong and how to react to them.  I  kept remembering things from my Air Force days - such as if the airplane ever  does something you didn't ask it to do - unload.  Unload for control will  get you out of a lot of problems, but you have to do it early enough before  something really bad develops into an uncontrollable situation. And the  Lightning did not have a drag chute to help get the pointy end of the airplane  back into the lead position.

  

 Please feel free to ask any questions you may have, but remember to  evaluate whether or not the risks are worth the rewards - or vice versa.

  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz

  [quote][b]

Bill Strahan

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 145

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out

Max:

No, I'm definitely NOT experienced with this type of stuff.  I've flown some acro, and done a lot of spins.  I'm more comfortable with a spin than a loop, but I've done it in planes that had some pretty well known and repeatable spin characteristics.  I'm not a great pilot nor do I have the background Buz brings to the table.  I just enjoy this stuff, and if I can do it while remaining safe I will.



I did not go beyond my first jump.  It was an all day course, followed by the jump.  It was not a tandem jump, I jumped and had the instructors with me, and pulled my own cord.  That was what I was wanting.  I didn't want the AFF license, I just wanted the experience of getting out of a plane, freefall, stabilization, and pulling the cord.  I didn't drop it.  I DID freeze out on the wing strut, which was one more reason I was happy I did the jump.  I know if I ever need to get out to just keep moving, don't pause.



Buz & Max:

You both bring up valid points.  I may decide not to explore the spins at all, but the points for me about bailing out remain.  What's the point in testing to VNE, or doing any type of flutter testing if you do not have a plan for things going bad?



I don't want to see it go from TARFU during testing to FUBAR because I can't get out.  



The temptation is strong to just assume I'll get the canopy open somehow.  The responsible thing (if it exists in this context) is to ensure some method of canopy jettison.  I'll keep stewing on this one and let you guys know what I end up doing.  



Thanks for your input, it was EXACTLY what I was looking for on the list.  What a resource.



Bill

Kayberg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: Bailing out

In a message dated 12/5/2009 1:29:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

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 

  [quote][b]

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: Bailing out

Doug C   I'd like to add to  your email there C comment number 3.  Both Cessna Skycatchers had a ballistic parachute C the first failed to work properly and the pilot then had to bail out.  I don't remember if the second prototype worked correctly or not C I think it did C but the plane was destroyed anyhow after repeated impact with the ground.  

I agree with several assessments here.  Flight test your aircraft to know that your performance within the specified envelope.  Go from what is known to what is unknown in small steps and expect the unexpected and give yourself multiple outs.  Either don't risk doing things like spin testing or do so with an experienced test pilot and test profile.  Brian W.

From: Kayberg(at)aol.com

Date: Sat C 5 Dec 2009 09:31:46 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Bailing out

To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

        In a message dated 12/5/2009 1:29:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time C  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	

Max:

No C I'm definitely NOT experienced with this type of    stuff.  I've flown some acro C and done a lot of spins.  I'm more    comfortable with a spin than a loop C 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 C 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 C  at least 2 were former Air Force jet jockeys (not  Buz) C   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 C but it was not a fun time.

 2) Assumptions that a Lightning is "like" something else C 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 C during spin  testing C two different airplanes became uncontrollable and ended up  crashing.   Parachutes saved the pilots C 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 C 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 C 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 C it was necessary to  pitch the nose up at very high angles.   Same for doing departure  stalls.  If you work at doing aggressive stalls C 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 C 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 C without a single common cause C out  of more than 1 C000 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 C000 flying.   We really need Lightning pilots to act wisely C  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 C turns and banks feel good and we think she wants to loop C roll or  spin.  Take a cold shower first.

 FWIW

 Doug Koenigsberg 

   	  Quote: 	

ectric.com

">www.buildersbooks.com

builthelp.com

ww.matronics.com/contribution

st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List

onics.com

 		 	   		  Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free Cexclusive  gift. Click here to download.

Bill Strahan

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 145

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out

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

rosestar(at)sonic.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: 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.

n1bzrich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:34 am Post subject: 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(at)aol.com writes:.

  	  Quote: 	
		     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 

 	  Quote: 	
		  



====================================

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

====================================



	
	


  [quote][b]

rosestar(at)sonic.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:45 am Post subject: 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(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   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(at)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

     ====================================



     *



 *

 *

info(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of n1bzrich(at)aol.com

 Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:30 AM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: 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(at)aol.com writes:.  

   	  Quote: 	
		      

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   

   	  Quote: 	
		    ====================================ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.comm/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.comtp://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==================================== 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com 	
1

        [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:23 am Post subject: 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(at)flylightning.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		        

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(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of n1bzrich(at)aol.com

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:30    AM

To:    lightning-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: 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(at)aol.com    writes:.

    	  Quote: 	
		            

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 

 	  Quote: 	
		    ====================================ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.comm/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.comtp://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==================================== 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  ==================================== 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  ttp://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com 	
1

 	  Quote: 	
		  m/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com 	
2 	


  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: 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(at)sonic.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: Rosalie    <rosestar(at)sonic.net>



Doug's comments are very wise. 



I am    one of those Zodiac owners.  I am parting out my airplane for    

specific reasons.



However, some of us pilots are aware of the    conditions in which those 

airplanes were flown when they crashed...250#    over gross, extreme high 

speed low pass, aggressive speeds in an airplane    at 1200#.  These are 

pilot issues.  The point is that these    LSA's are extremely light 

aircraft which are advertised to fly at 138    mph.  In my opinion that is 

WAY over acceptable speeds for the    aluminum airframes, and the tube and 

fabric airframes.  What could    have saved lives?  Answer:  prudent and 

conservative    flying.  These are not aerobatic airplanes.  If someone 

wants to    fly it aggressively, then they risk their own life, but also 

impact the    future of other owners. 



Now...I am on this list because I am    contemplating a purchase of a 

Lightening for its structural    strength.   But, I would not consider 

aerobatics in    it.



("Sad") Brad

former Zodiac builder/pilot.  ========================  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  ==================================================



	


  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: Bailing out

In a message dated 12/5/2009 10:57:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  bill(at)gdsx.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

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

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

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