Guest TOSGcentral Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I have to ‘fess up and admit that I have been unfaithful! I am not talking about my wife/girlfriends but rather that I have been cohabiting intimately with a Lightwing once again – both in Airworthiness and Operations – and leaving my Thrusters in the hangar for a while. This has awoken memories because I have had a bit to do with the breed – taildragger, nosewheel, float/amphibians. It was refreshing to sample once again how benign they are, how efficient they are and what superb trainers they are. So this poses the ‘Lightwing Mystery’ – why were they not more popular? I will be interested in views on the subject but first a few views of mine about the type. I am particularly interested vis a vis all the comments that I read on these forums that suggest that ultralights are dated and we have to look to the future! The Lightwing is interesting because it was in there at the beginning of 95.25 along with the Drifters and Thrusters. Yet it was so different in appearance. It looked like a ‘real aircraft’ and while a bit stubby and blocky looked nice with a raked windscreen and good general lines. Bill Whitney got involved with design (I understand) with Howie Hughes and a very practical and robust tail dragger trainer and general sporting aircraft emerged. The one I am involved with at the moment is #004 – so it is early, has a 582 motor, been enclosed with doors and entirely re-built. The engine is fully reconditioned and the whole lot went for about $25k. Very nice thank you! The new owner is one of my ex students on Thrusters and asked if I would sit in with him for a bit and look at various operating procedures. No problem I did not mind. So we flew it out of the rather interesting strip it had been living at and brought it to Watts Bridge. A bit of airframe peering and TLC went on to make it really the bees knees and then some flying. Oh happy days! While I personally thrive on the sheer savagery that the Thrusters are capable of inflicting on you and will never change from them. It was so nice to be in a real taildragger but one that is so placid. The controls are well harmonised but it remains a stick and rudder aircraft with enough aileron drag to keep you on your toes. It has performance and can easily mooch along at 70 knots with the 582 motor yet on intensive circuit work was returning 14 ltrs per hour fuel consumption. It is built like a brick outhouse but is still light. It wheel lands or 3 points with equal decorum and only very basic skills required to do so. Like most two seat ultralights you cannot carry much in it like baggage but it is roomy and comfortable enough for a nice day’s flying about. I reckon that they got the Lightwing really right and it is a great all around machine – particularly in terms of being an ultralight. So why did they not work as well as they really should have done in the light of what has happened to the movement since? Perhaps the answer lies in the level of marketing thrust. Their competition soon came in the shape of the Jabiru and the Skyfox. The latter was rapidly tamed into the nosewheel Gazelle after no end of write-offs that nobody really heard much about. Advertising and promotion sells aircraft and thus dictates where movements go, what people want and this is then cemented into place by what flying schools buy. Was the Lightwing too sophisticated (or GA) in appearance to really satisfy the rag and bone merchants? But then was it not fast enough to satisfy the class of member that Rec Aviation has now brought in? I would like to hear other views from forum members about why a really nice aircraft did not get the sales it deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keeffe Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Lead wing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 what was the price on it's introduction compared to the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOSGcentral Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Dunno Ozzie - about the 40k mark I would guess from recollection. They had not actually been around long enough for a good second hand market to have established so were always beyond my reach although I was seriously looking at an amphibian school aircraft but could not get access to the local lakes. So Yeah! Price would have been a factor as they were significantly more expensive. But what I guess has fascinated me is the huge price jump that people are presently not just taking in their stride but actually seem to want - plus are directly pushing prices up consequent to weight increases. As I said I dunno and was interested in other views. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Could it be that 2 stroke motor? It may 'look' like a real aeroplane but it certainly don't sound like one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I think that the gemini was introduced at 26,000 and i thought that was a bit over the top back then. we seem to have a much higher standard of living now with a higher disposable income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Tony I hear you, and you are so correct about how they fly. The late Bill Starke turned me onto Lightwings when he was around, he was the NQ dealer and loved them also. They were a little more expensive back then, but you got more aeroplane for your money. I flew 25-032 (001 ?) from old station at Raglan to Townsville when it was sold. We were told that it was the FIRST production LW, and the one that flew from furthest point West to Furthest point East in company with a couple of flight stars, and the whole thing was supported by the Army. It had been crashed and rebuilt a couple of times, but still looked and flew fine. It only had a 532 in it then, and it got along fine as it was the lightest one I have ever flown, landed beautifully also. They go fine with the 582, or the 80hp or 100hp 912s. It had a control stick that just came straight up off the floor and was about 3 ft high. The logbooks made for interesting reading, and there is a photo of it on floats at the Ballina factory (1st on floats ?) I have flown a few LWs since, including the GA 912, and currently own and fly a GR-55 912 Heliview 25-3370 which is one of the last high-wings made in 2000. It has the optional 2 stage flaps, which make for even nicer landings and approaches. They are a real great, basic, well behaved tail dragger that will take you cross country in style also. Is it possible that there wern't too many pilots around back then who could handle, or afford them ??. They keep you on your toes come landing time, for those who like the little wheel at the back, but I have landed worse. I am sick of 'bland/average', and the LW s got enough going to keep me interested. I'm hooked !!............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keeffe Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 A bit of info on the light wing guys. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Could it be that the Lightwing simply came in at a time when we wanted to keep it simple with rag and tube and the aircraft looked too much like the GA style we were trying to get away from?. Was it simply too early and not it`s time and therefore got left behind?. Cheers, Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keeffe Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 They are and were over priced in my opinion. Look at the speed I believe they are 90k and they are just a Lightwing frame with low wings on them. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Many Lightwings have endured thousands of hours of hard training punishment, and stood up fine...I flew one with well over 3000 hrs TT (training) on it, and was amazed how straight it still flew. Everything is easily replaceable with bushes etc. The wing is really well built and all Alum and cable braced. Cockpit is large and comfortable, with more room than a Gazelle or Jab. Somebody said to me recently,"the Lightwing just looks like it's got Baxxs ! ". Like my previous Drifter, I just like the way the Lightwings fly................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 how is the tubing standing up to internal corrosion? was it treated after welding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I can tell you that they are doing just a little better than some Storch airframes which were just top coated with no base primer. Don't know if all Storches were done like this. The Lightwing Fuse frames have plugged access-holes throughout, so you can internally treat over the life of the airframe.. One of only three ADs on the Lightwing deals with corrosion in the tail surfaces, which has always been a problem with this style of aircraft. Internal condensation drains towards the back, with the tail on the ground. The actual aircraft that instigated that AD was a very early one (25-032), which may have been the first or second one out of the factory, and HAD been on floats in saltwater..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moz Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 25 Reg Lightwing in CTA Is someone able to tell me whether I can fly a lightwing (25 series rego) in controlled airspace? (Assuming pilot is GA licenced/GA AFR & a radio/transponder etc is fitted). Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Everything sounds good except I think you may need to have a "certified" engine ?.....or has that changed. It is a remote possibility there is a certified engine in your plane. B Flood had about a dozen certified 912 engines in stock for Gazelle production, when they went belly-up. They were being sold and probabily ended up in various aeroplanes. I'm going back several years so I would imagine they're all gone by now. From memory the certified donks had a red s/no label, as opposed to the normal black one on non-certified......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 What's stopping you from getting it home Flyerme ?......................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 What's stopping you from getting it home Flyerme ?......................................................Maj... weatther. number of fronts been constantly blowing threw brngging rain/hail.etc....wind gust have me waiting for more forgiving weather...just an't catch a break..i only need one good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Flyerme, ain't only you p***ed off with our current weather. My dogs are really in need of a good walk but damned if I'm taking them out just to get soaked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 It is 1535 in Mackay and we have fog building... strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I am like maj I love my Ligthwing I am in the process of rebuilding 032 with a new 582 which I found is the perfect match for this. Airframe this will be my second Ligthwing as I had 0229 for over eleven years with a 582 which could easy out climb an out perform most other aircraft of it class we flew from top to bottom of the east coast many times without a single problem from the little two stroke so I am very fond of the Ligthwing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I am like maj I love my Ligthwing I am in the process of rebuilding 032 with a new 582 which I found is the perfect match for this. Airframe this will be my second Ligthwing as I had 0229 for over eleven years with a 582 which could easy out climb an out perform most other aircraft of it class we flew from top to bottom of the east coast many times without a single problem from the little two stroke so I am very fond of the Ligthwing. I have said it before... say it again... I love 'em! Come to think of it I have spent a considerable percentage of my small number of Ultralight air time in Maj Millard's Lightwing... Doug I just went and had a look at your restoration album on this site... looks good. And shows just why I reckon they are a great machine... That triangulated fuselage is a piece of art... they are simple and robust and rebuildable...all metal... they will still be flying in 50 years time if looked after. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 She's coming along niceley hope to be flying around end of September 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 As an avid fan of the LightWing, I'm surprised I missed this post! I had to battle my way to solo in the Lightwing, taking 13 hours, which considering I had over 100 hours in gliders, plus flying hang gliders and having flown models for years, seemed a long time. But this was the start of a long career of learning to fly a 'mans' aeroplane. After 25 years and some 2000 hours, I'm not learning many new tricks now, but I'm having plenty of fun watching students make all the mistakes that I made (yes, I am trying to help them) and finally seeing them 'click' on how to handle the beast. I started on serial #005, 25-0081, (last seen with over 4000 hours on it) as an original LW-1. No doors, round tube struts, the Austrian hand grenade (R532) with pull start and no trim. Those were the days. Half the time, by the time you got it started, you were so buggered, you just sat there telling everyone you were waiting for it to warm up (you were really catching your breath). It had the original slab sided 'Box' body, narrow U/C and dodgy brakes, real fun in a crosswind. As time went on, various students (and a couple of instructors) managed to 'bend' -81, but she would come back with all the latest improvements, DOORS!, wider U/C, the 'fastback' with matching full cowl, better seats, fibreglass tanks that didn't leak (as much) as the original sealed wing tanks, a real dash and eventually trim, a radio and brakes that worked (most of the time). The next lightwing I flew was Bill Starks 25-0321 at Charters Towers. A few years later I got checked out on one of the GR532FP's (float plane), 25-0429 at Prosserpine, with an hours worth of water landings at Airley Beach. By then I was an instructor, and my club, 'The Sydney Ultralight Flying Club' bought a second Lightwing 25-0158, #024 (I think) another GR532 which flew until an instructor ran out of fuel and crashed it, so off it went to Howie to be rebuilt, but by now many in the club were getting wary of the two strokes and opted to have it upgraded to a GR912. Then things started to get interesting, when -158 came back with the 912 fitted, there was another change that I had trouble (and still do) understanding? The wheels had been moved forward by nearly six inches to make up for the heavier engine !? I questioned this, but was told 'everyone else gets used to it', although I was never happy with the ground handling or the lack of 'float' on landing. Strangely enough, a school operating next door to us leased a GR912 25-0692, which I've done a few hours in, and it turned out to be fairly easy to land either wheeled or three point. Later on, a group of us at the now 'Sydney Recreational Flying Club' got together and bought an earlier LW-1, 25-0033, #002? This was (and still is) a genuine original LW-1, box body, tube struts and a pull start 532! Now with a bit of experience, this was a lot of fun to fly, would glide well and almost out land our new Foxbat! Time moves on, as did I, and retired (?) to Taree, where I set up a satellite school for the club flying a Gazelle, but what I really wanted was another Lightwing. Eventually after looking at some very neglected lightwings (in my price range) I managed to by a fourth hand GR912, 24-0437, #083, that looked really good, with a nice interior and a healthy 912 that was bout to run out of hours. This was a good aeroplane until a heavy landing showed up a badly repaired manufacturing fault, when an axle snapped off, almost writing the plane off.. During the repairs, a student that was impressed by my Lightwing, decided he wanted one and bought a GR582, 25-0223, #030, and put it on line with me while I repair mine. As for the original post regarding why not more of them, or more successful than they appear? I think this comes down to outside perception. In the early days there were Thrusters and Drifters. When people looked at these collections of open framed, tubes, wires and sailcloth, they half expected to see a two stroke bolted to it somewhere. When they spotted a fully fabric covered, fully cowled engine and nicely painted aeroplane, they were surprised to see a two stroke in it. To that end, many don't remember, but the first Jabiru had a Rotax 532 in it, which was a real performer, but it blew up and was never done again. Market pressure wanted four strokes, but the only viable one back then was the VW, which brought about the GA-55. It all looked good on paper, but never really performed and left many disheartened. Australian Lightwing tried going sideways and created the Pocket Rocket series with a mix of two strokes and VW's, but these gave the impression of being 'built down to a price', and were now competing with VW Skyfoxe's (which in all honesty were no real improvement) but looked flashier, and were eventually power with the new Rotax 912. Howie could see where the market was going and the GR912 came into being, but the new Jabiru's were starting to take up the limelight. But through all this, I guess it may have been a failing of all the instructors out there flying Lightwings, not pushing the great flying qualities of the Lightwing compared to (well really) any of the aircraft being used as trainers over the last twenty years. I'll get some flame for this but; All the trainers we've had just don't have the complete package that the Lightwing offers. The Thruster had nice handling, but the glide of a brick, plus being exposed and noisy. The Drifter actually flew better than the Thruster, had a (barely) better glide and at least the instructor could hide from the elements behind the student, provided he flew straight. The Skyfox had nice handling qualities, but was quite cramped for the average Australian student and instructor, and could easily self destruct on landing if you didn't do it perfectly. Oddly enough, when you get to the Gazelle, you find (again) an aircraft with easy handling and as a trike, even easier to land. So much so, that I've started to come across pilots taught to fly in a Gazelle that when viewed from the outside, appear to fly quite well until you climb in with them and find that they can be fairly rough pilots with not a lot of 'precision' in their flying, why?, well it turns out the plane is so easy to fly and land, that not a lot of effort is required. The Lightwing can demonstrate all the aspects of flight that can to be taught and yet is very forgiving of most abuse, and if you really do screw up, they prove very strong on impact (I don't think anyone has been killed crashing a GR Lightwing?) I know there are more trainers available now, but many of them still don't have the 'package' that the Lightwing gives to a student. It would be nicer with a tiny bit more room in the cockpit, and maybe an improvement in the finish but not bad for something made more than twenty years ago. And now for some pictures to look at and reminisce..... The Lightwing I started in, in it's second colour scheme. Sydney club's second GR532. The GR532FP at Prosserpine. (Yes, the wheels are down!) Sydney Club's second Lightwing now a GR912. Comparison between GR912 and GR582, note gear legs. An original LW-1 I had shares in. My GR912 while with previous owner. (Yes, THAT one) The GR582 I use for two stroke and tailwheel conversions. Ahh, Lightwings....... 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 i want one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now