Location of the oil tank...

[River]

Could someone indicate the reason as to why the LightWing's engine oil tank is mounted inside the pilot/passenger cockpit area?

 

This goes against all the reasons of having a firewall. Firewalls are just that, put all hostile items in front ofthe firewall. Very hot oil in my personal option should must certainly be as far away from us Mark 1 humans as possible. (And yes, I am a great supporter of the LightWing though, just this oil tank location concerns me...)

 

Here's a very hot item with associated oil plumming coming into the cockpit area. I once flew a hire Lightwing which had an overfilled oil tank that caused an blowbackout of the oil tank and onto the passengers shoes and cockpit floor. To say it did not go over well was and understatement. I take it the reason is to do with a weight and balance of the aircraft.

 

Rodger

 

 

[pylon500]

I would have to agree that the oil tanks location is questionable. As mentioned in another post, one of our club GR-582's was rebuilt as a GR-912 by the factory, but when it came back, the oil tank was just behind the pilot seat.This seemed OK at the time, it was accessable and with the vents open, the

 

heat was not really noticed, the main problem was the length of all the plumbing, plus the change of oil level between level flight and when on the ground (it's a taildragger). The next time some work was done at the factory, the tank was moved to the now typical location, and yes, it's easy to spill oil in the cabin and if the cap's not on right it makes a hell of a mess, but worst of all (to me) is that it makes the aeroplane even more nose heavy. I discussed this with Howie once and he was quite happy with having a CofG range of 16 to 23%!Being a modeller and sailplane pilot, I've been used to CofG ranges between 20 to 35% (some laminar sections will happily go to 40%!) Basically the LightWing was designed and set up to be a trainer, being slightly nose heavy and having limited elevator travel, it requires effort to stall the aircraft and is exrtemely hard to spin, tending to just fly out after half a turn (classic spin at idle)The down side to this is some difficulty in doing three point landings at idle or if deadstick (when you really need to for short paddocks!) I'm wandering off thread here a bit but, when our GR-582 came back as a GR-912, it had new undercarriage that was swept forward compared to original, and this was explained as being needed because the engine was heavier? This is interesting as the wing is still in the same place?? The new U/C moved more weight onto the tailwheel and increased the tendancy to groundloop!!I was not happy. It turns out the U/C was actually the gear used on the GA-55 which as well as having a different wing, has it located about 5" further forward relative to the old GR wing.This puts the gear in the right

 

place for the wing and CofG as well as giving more elevator authority via the longer tail moment.Still, after asking around, I found that most opertaors of GR-912's didn't seem to mind or notice, and some where operating off bituman runways ?!Now after instructing in our GR-912 for a few years, I've got used to it's habits and I'm happy with the way it stays planted on the ground after landing, espcially in stromg winds.It will bite if you let it, but, if it's the only thing you've flown, you get taught to avoid it, and fly on.Sorry about the rant.

 

Arthur.

 

 

[River]

Thanks Arthur for the comments, very informative and quite interesting on both the aircrafts history and your views.

 

Carrying the question further as to whether it’s time to see if a ‘Mark 2’ version of the LightWing should be given serious consideration, my personal view it that Howie should produce one. There’s a number of training schools around oz that have or are using the Skyfox Gazelle. Yes, of-course there are many new training aircraft coming online. Most of these are overseas produced aircraft both built with either the newer composite fibre materials or the well known steel/aluminium variety. The steel/aluminium versions are reasonably easy to repair if required whilst although the newer composite aircraft are becoming more popular they require more specialised knowledge and materials to repair. Whether or not they can take the level of wear-an-tear and stand the time of many years of being exposed to our extremes of ultraviolet sunlight, etc is yet be reckoned with in my humble opinion.

 

An example of this line of thought is with our fabric covered aircraft, when the fabric is ‘time expired’ it’s a reasonable simple task to replace the weathered fabric, but how you access, test and know when a composite fibre material’d wing or tail feathers has been structurally weakened requires some serious professional knowledge.

 

It would appear that we are beginning to lack any good oz built aircraft with-in this market. Tony Hayes in and earlier thread gave and made some very good points on the reasons why this may not be a viable process but I beg to differ with Tony’s views in that we should continue building and supporting our oz ‘ultralight industry’.

 

I note the Gazelle’s days a numbered due to a number of reasons however I see a European company has taken a lead in this area and produced what appears to be totally upgraded version of the Gazelle calling it a Eurofox. (See photo comparison below). This does seem be quite a major re-make and it’ll be interesting to see if any make their way out here to oz for training, etc.

 

A question? Other readers who have Gazelle’s and are using them as training aircraft or pilots who own a Gazelle - would you consider purchasing a LightWing if there was a major upgraded version available? If so what modifications would make it a workable attraction… Oh, I’d better say from the outset, no – I have no business interests with the LightWing company, just a healthy interest in trying to keep flying the Australian flag – read recreational aviation oz industry…

 

Ok, Arthur, like yourself I’ve jumped up on my hobby-horse (Buy Australian) but it’s all I hope in the interests of generating a healthy oz debate on our recreational aviation Australian outlook.

 

Yours,

 

Rodger

 

 

 

[pylon500]

G'Day Rodger, I hate to shatter your allusions, but I did point out elsewhere that the old SkyFox is really a copy of the American 'Denny' KitFox (the MKII to be exact)Around about the KitFox V, 'SkyStar' (the newer parent company) introduced a tricycle U/C, and called it the Vixen.The mob up at Caloundra saw this and adapted the nosewheel to the SkyFox and called it the Gazzelle. 'SkyStar' got as far as the KitFox VII before going bust againThe EuroFoxis just another copy, of a copy, of a copy, and so on. As you may have guessed, I'm no fan of the Skyfox, especially after having to repair a few of them.You may notice insurers don't like them either, mainly because of the repair costs.For example, a typical accident for a SkyFox (no a Gazzelle) is a ground loop.This could be blamed on the shorter fin and rudder than a Gazzelle, but either way the damage was usually a collapsed U/C (it is a bit weak) a broken prop, some cowl damage and often some cracking back near the fin post.The annoying bit though is that most of the time, the a wingtip hit the ground, and most of the aileron hangers would break off!That would seem bad enough, but if the wing hit hard enough, it could bend one of the spar tubes, and when that happens....You throw, the wing, away! The amount of work required to replace either spar tube was more than the wing was worth!I don't know what you would do now? My other gripes were basic ones like, a cramped cabin, small doors, a hot cabin, having to duck under the wing in flight to see where you were going, always guessing how much fuel was really in the tanks, the leaking hydraulic brakes, the fact you could apply full rudder or full brake, but not at the same time!Other than that, they seemed nicely built, had attractive upholstery and had folding wings!Sorry if I've crushed anyones dreams, but I can only tell it as I see it.C'mon Howie, lets get more Lightwings out there! Arthur."Now where's that fireproof suit?"

 

 

[Admin]

I own a Gazelle which is currently used online for training and although I have also just purchased a CT I would buy another Gazelle tomorrow IF they had more interior room, cruised at 100kts at 75% and better endurance. The only reason I bought a CT was the interior room and the performance (130kts @ 75%) not to mention its endurance of Melb to Bris on one tank and its light weight for luggage.

 

If I want to go on a cruise naturally I would take the CT but if I want to fly without having to think to much then the Gazelle will always be my choice. It is as if the Gazelle has a "Land Me" button on the panel that once on final you can just say to her land me and she does - she is such a forgiving girl which makes her a joy to fly. Her undercarriage is as strong as Mallee bull which radiates confidence when I am flaring and her crosswind ability - there's nothing better.

 

Some things I don't like about the Gazelle apart from her interior room, performance, weightand endurance is toe brakes, wooden aileron connectors and flimsy doors but overall I just feel at home in her, but then I did train in her

 

 

[River]

G'day Arthur, no, you have not shatter any illusions... I tend to agree with most of what you have said especially with the Skyfox/Gazelle but part of my writing up this issue, if that's what one calls it, is to hopefully generate discussion and though on our RA oz aircraft scene. We both appear to be doing fairly well on this... Let's hope others take up the 'charge' too. Now that Howie has got has new low wing baby up and running that he now may be able to put some time and thoughtinto a upgraded LightWing for our RA training market.

 

Either way Arthur, enjoy your flying.

 

Rodger

 

 

[River]

Hi Ian, Having flown the gazelle a bit too... some further thoughts (hmmm, wanderings of the mind , now where did I put it ) are thethe lack of flaps too. One area which I have had first hand experience with was listening to a number of youths who were all interested in learning to fly and were visiting a Big Boys Toys expo where a Gazelle was on display for all to see close up. Everything look good overall, here’s the aircraft where one could get a very close up view and the training school staff were all appropriately dressed in their ‘commercial pilots’ look-alike uniforms. Damm though did the <i style="">wheels fall off[/i] when they all looked in the cockpit area and observed the instrument panel. Without exception, all the young men made serious negative comment on the way that the instruments and the panel layout, looked and fappeared to them! They all reckoned it must have come out of a snoopy World War 1 aeroplane. They all expressed considerable disappointment and how old the panel looked and the cheapness of some of the gauges, etc. My point here is that with just about every car now days, be it for public use, commercial or even motor sports, the instrument panels arefitted with reasonably new instrumentation and the panel design/colour, etc also looks the part too. As we can see with other RA aircraft coming on line of late most have quite well designed and coloured panelsoften with the current electronic and or a mix of electronic and analogue instruments. This all helps in both bring our RA aircraft up to a perceived and professional standard. Because there are quite a number of training schools using the Gazelle, this is why I’m of the belief the is a market for a newer version of say, the LightWing as I’m of the thinking that no one will be modifying or upgrading the Gazelle here in oz. But, we do have a LightWing manufacture.TheGazelle’s are slowly being retired from time/age reasons… Generally speaking. I believe that our training schools will need to have a replacement aircraft that allschools can, use of a similar aircraft. This then saves considerably on pilots who love flying but are not able to own an aircraft for their own reasons but would be able to move between flight schools a hire the similar aircraft without further endorsement checks, etc… Currently we appear to have quite a number of different brands and model of aircraft avialable which is Ok but it bring back the 'costing'question.OK, enough of my thoughts for the moment, gota get back to some work, (Rats).

 

Yours in receational aviation,

 

Rodger

 

 

[Admin]

Yes Rodger, I agree the panel in the gazelle leaves a lot to be desired but that the panel is basic made it less daunting for me when I started training. I had visions and thoughts before I had even seen an ultralight of a 747 panel and at my age then (45) my first thought was hell the heck am I going to be able to learn what all the buttons and gauges do. When I fist stepped into the Gazelle, my very first light aircraft flight, all those 747 thoughts went out of my mind and replaced with "oh my god does this thing fly" but I soon found out my focus was outside and on really only 2 gauges - ASI & alt. This helped me as a beginner to learn to fly at a pace that I was comfortable with.

 

Now, having said that the panel in my CT which has every type of gadget including an auto pilot and 4 stage flaps (inc minus 12deg) plus a GPS just above eye sight line but this is something that I believe I have earnt by learning the basics first. Can you imagine how daunting this panel would seem to an absolute beginner, but then I suppose an 18 year old mind would thrive in this environment. This panel was made up from the basic one that was installed new in the aircraft so a panel can be made up to suit the needs.

 

I agree the standard Gazelle panel does look old and all it needs is one more button "that "Land Me" button that I spoke about.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Most light Aircraft that were produced only had 4 gauges (airspeed, altitude, Tacho and combination oil temp, oil pressure) along with a magnetic compass, how did those pilots manage? Me, I'd rather look outside and enjoy the view than spend all my time looking at a well equipped panel.

 

Going back to the thread idea, I used to sit in a Beaver quite a bit a few years ago, they had an oil tank inside.

 

 

[greggf]

Further to the issue of a new-generation Lightwing. I would love to:

 

Buy a plane from Howie (to know it was built "right".)

 

Have the strength and reliability of a Lightwing.

 

Enjoy Lightwing ease of flying and stability.

 

Stretch out in the nice wide roominess of the Lightwing.

 

With...

 

100 kts cruise, composite curves (vs tube and rag boxiness), local manufacturer support, ready availability of spares, high wing (I know, it's just a personal thing).

 

I like the look of the CT2K, and I just lurv flying the Foxbat. If only Howie could come up with a compromise between them.

 

Gregg

 

 

[vk3auu]

Oil tank behind seat.

 

My '701 has a second hand 912 which originally came out of a Lightwing with the oil tank behind the seat. The sheila who owned it had a habit of starting it up and blasting off without waiting for the oil to warm up. Owing to the fact that the cold oil was still quite viscous, the engine was not getting good lubrication so it seized a big end and bent a rod. I got it from Bert after they had repaired it, but she managed to do the same thing about 12 hours later in another engine.

 

The lesson to be learned is make sure that the diameter of these long oil lines is sufficient and also make sure you wait until the temperature comes up before you give it too many revs.

 

David

 

 

[vk3auu]

Elevator authority with forward CoG

 

Arthur (pylon500) made a point about the difficulty flaring in the 912 Lightwing because of the forward CoG. I originally had that trouble in my '701 until I moved the battery back a bit, but it still wasn't too good with more than half flaps. If I carried a bit of power into the flare it was OK, but that wasn't always desirable with a short strip.

 

Before my last trip to Narromine, I removed the slats from the wing leading edge and put vortex generators from John Gilpin along the top of each wing. I also put a row of them under the elevator and now I can pull it right up into a proper stall with full flaps and power at idle. I know the Lighty has a different elevator profile to the '701, as I recall it is a bit like the Thruster, but a row of VG's underneath right on the leading edge of the elevator might just do the trick. They need to go at the very lowest point when the elevator is at the end of its upmost travel.

 

David

 

 

[pylon500]

I've always thought the tail on the 701 was a bit small for an aircraft with 'low speed handling'.

 

An attempt to offset this has been made by using an inverted section on the tail, but a good CofG position also helps.

 

As for removing slats for vortex generators, while I like the idea, you need to think about how the slats affect the chord of the wing relative to the CofG?

 

Arthur.