pylon500

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.......

I was not aware of any restriction to the use of retractable undercarriage on ultralights, there are actually a few out there. It is an endorsement, along with variable pitch and amphibian, (floatplane with retracts). I've looked at the ASSO plans before, your right, not for beginners... Arthur.

I have training available in a GR582 LightWing, or a 503WB Drifter, here at Taree. Search 'Taree Wing' https://sites.google.com/site/tareewing/

G'Day Doug, I find it best to have independent brakes and steerable tail wheel, handles cross winds and smooth runways. Without a lot of running around and/or scrounging, I just ordered a set of wheels, tires and brakes from AircraftSpruce. These were the cheapest, AZUSA 8 INCH ALUMINUM WHEELS AND BRAKE KIT from Aircraft Spruce , they are a larger diameter (which rolls well on rough ground) bit a narrow profile, so don't cause much drag. It is a complete 2 wheel kit. Arthur.

As he says, who is willing to be nominated on our proxy forms? Do we just put in our state rep? Arthur.

You may get away with trying to repair the glass tank, the hard bit is removing ALL traces of the two stroke oil to get the resin to stick. Try repeated flushing with neat petrol, probably half a litre a time followed by a couple of flushes with acetone or MEK if you can find it. A.

Alloy tanks are OK once you get past the time it takes to make them. There are differences in alloy tanks, welded or riveted. I've had a welded tank that ended up with porous welds Riveted tanks need to be sealed around the edges with 'Pro-Seal' which is a horrible and messy stuff, (used it all the time in the RAAF) Avoid sloshing compounds, they break down with ethanol and two stroke oil! Riveted tanks can be a bit easier if you can arrange to have the rivets through external flanges, still pays to have an access hole somewhere though. Arthur. ps, Hows that prop going?

WHACK "OWW, what did you do that for?" This is being hit on the head class.....

Hang on, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

90hp 2.2 Jab Hope you have a ballistic chute....

I'm assuming you mean log engine time against air switch? As stated, this is plausable. If your talking about times for your flying log you can log total time, hobbs, master, whatever, as once you are seated in the aircraft with the engine running, you are in charge of it. Always remember though that your flying log is your record, adding extra time anywhere is only fooling yourself if you are not gaining knowledge and/or ability. Arthur.

This 'Grey' area between what CASA will accept, and what Rotax states in it's manuals, stems from many, many years ago when aircraft had mechanical cable driven Tacho's with a built in hour meter. These Tacho's were usually just modified and refaced automobile speedometers. This meant that they clocked at various times depending on the RPM the engine was set to. Small gears were used to adjust the cable speed so that when the engine was running at cruise speed, the odeometer, now being used as an hour meter, would tick over one hour every hour. This also meant that a motor running at idle would probably only tick over about 0.6 in an hour, conversely, running an engine at full power will will read an 1.0 in less than an hour. It was accepted that this variable time rate was reflective of an engines actual 'wear' or usage time, so was acceptable. Because of this, when the electronic (Hobbs) hour meters turned up, people started using 'air-switches' to log times. Arthur.

My two cents worth. The Nissan straight six only used to fail, when fitted to the Commode-door. And, the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ fits the 'Sports Car' category being only rear wheel drive. But if you want something that handles, stick to real Subaru's Arthur.

I guess that depends on how you look at it, I think it's still only a Jab..... Arthur.

Was reading the other post about what flying music we like, then saw this post and figured I would add here. I got into electronica back in the seventies with the likes of Pink Floyd and Tangerine Dream (have actually been to concerts!!) Found this youtube clip about a year ago, and I still listen to it now and then. The track is 'Pilots of the Ether Belt' from the Tangerine Dream album 'Mars Polaris'. The graphics are some form of flight sim, and a little unbelievable from a glider pilots point of view, but entertaining, if a little long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFp_fElzY4

Ah, memories , just looking through the Stunt plans... can't decide, Nobler, Thunder bird (would go for MkIII) or the Super Master? Almost a trend going here, I guess you can see where I got my own early design from; Yes, that was a LONG time ago Arthur.

Probably Dupont® I think the Gossamer Condor and Albatross used Mylar as well Arthur.

EGT is the number one gauge for two strokes, and if you have the chance/option, one for each pot, especially if you have twin carbs. If only running one carb, check regularly that it is square with the engine/manifold or you get different mixtures to each pot. Arthur.

In 1986 dollars, when I worked at the factory, $26,500 finished, test flown and on a trailer. Arthur.

Flat black never looks as good as you think it will, but GLOSS BLACK can look really good. One was painted thus in the JPS (John Player Special) colours with gold trim. There is a demo video of it (probably uploaded in the past) atthis link; You might be able to order one, but don't hold your breath.. Arthur.

Hey Mark, No, didn't design the hangar, well not all of it anyway. The kit came from a mob called ASIbuild in Toowoomba; http://www.asibuild.com.au/sheds/rural/workshops They were OK initially, but when I started wanting to do a few mods, it got a bit hard for them, and the price went up. The basic concept is simple enough and you could just order the primary structural members from Lysaght. All you would have to do is get someone to make the custom joining bits that tie it all together. Arthur.

Can't believe how busy I've been, anyhow, making some progress . One down, two to go..... Arthur.

All interesting points, but again a few clarifications; "Doing a Spin in a Breezy", the aircraft shown actually spinning is NOT a breezy, it's a Phantom (or similar) american ultralight. Sorry ahlocks, but I can think of a few of those described above, yes, unfortunately they are out there. Well OK, however, when I joined this forum it was basically aimed at ultralighters so I guess my original mindset got in there... Well there you go, learn something every day! I am currently a Senior Instructor in what I still call Ultralights, but all my spinning history was during my 200 odd hours in Gliders. But like your avatar quote, I'll also fly anything with wings (given a chance) Arthur.

I know the Neiuports are hard to fly, how does the fit of rage handle? I wanted to go off on a Tangent once, but they didn't have a spare seat....

?Do you mean the smoke flares on their ankles?