Jump to content

Lightwing GR912s Specifications


Recommended Posts

Can any one please advise the approx basic empty weight, MTOW, VNO and VNE figures from the POH of a GR912s tail wheel or nose wheel Lightwing aircraft?

 

Cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DIMENSIONS EXTERNAL:

 

Wing span 9.50 m (31 ft 2 in)

 

Length overall 5.68 m (18 ft 71/2 in)

 

Height overall 1.90 m (6 ft 21/4 in)

 

AREAS :

 

Wings, gross 15.35 m2 (165.2 sq ft)

 

WEIGHTS AND LOADINGS :

 

Weight empty 295 kg (650 lb)

 

Max T-O weight 544 kg (1,199 lb)

 

PERFORMANCE :

 

Max level speed 95 kt (176 km/h; 109 mph)

 

Max causing speed 80 kt (148 km/h; 92 mph)

 

Loiter speed 50 kt (93 km/h; 58 mph)

 

Stalling speed, full flaps, power off 40 kt (74 km/h; 46 mph)

 

Max rate of climb at S/L 244 m (800 ft)/min

 

T-O run 100 m (330 ft)

 

Landing run 80 m (263 ft)

 

Range with max fuel 216 n miles (400 km; 248 miles)

 

This help ya mate 080_plane.gif.36548049f8f1bc4c332462aa4f981ffb.gif

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

 

So the lightwing website says the mtow for this aircraft is now 600kg but I can't for the lif of me find the empty weight. Can anyone tell me the useful load?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Seb, the T-bird II is still mine. Still learning though. Had a, um, can't-afford-litigation-and-flying-enforced break for a few months.

 

ALW912 (with 912s Rotax) tricycle version basic empty weight is 302kg.

 

Be aware, not all of these are LSA. Pay close attention to the 24 or 55 prefix. Eg, flight school at Coominya has a pair of them. One is 544kg the other is 600kg mtow. Other than one having a transponder, color differences and a three blade prop on one/two blade on the other, they are identical.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

I can only speak for my craft witch was 544 now 400 kg my air craft weigh in at 205 so that leaves me at 195 - fuel that I carry 66lt in the wings and a further 32 in aux for long trip - 71 kg I weigh in at 105 And the miss @ 65 kg so I now have to leave fuel to take the boss all up so I now have

 

eg : me 105

 

Plane : 205

 

Full fuel + aux = 71

 

Wife 65

 

Total 446 Overweight by 46 kg so wife stay home or no aux fuel

 

Mind you that's a 582 lightwing not 912 ..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only speak for my craft witch was 544 now 400 kg my air craft weigh in at 205 so that leaves me at 195 - fuel that I carry 66lt in the wings and a further 32 in aux for long trip - 71 kg I weigh in at 105 And the miss @ 65 kg so I now have to leave fuel to take the boss all up so I now haveeg : me 105

Plane : 205

 

Full fuel + aux = 71

 

Wife 65

 

Total 446 Overweight by 46 kg so wife stay home or no aux fuel

 

Mind you that's a 582 lightwing not 912 ..

Why back to 400kg? All others appear to be 450 (aero power) or 480 (912).

 

This whole thing is confusing. Still can't see the difference between 25 and 55 registered.

 

Cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My is the 1st production unit for me too lift the mtow I have to strip the wing and put in a brace to bring it up to 450 kg she came out of the factory with a 532 rotax so the tell me

 

Major may be able to help u with an answer too your question ...

 

Copy major Millard can ya help ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maj Millard

Well I probabily can , it's all in the flight manual which is where ?......in the aeroplane out at Montpelier.......!, from memory though the empty weight is 302 KGs with usefull load 179 KGs ..so max take off 481 KGs ?.........Maj....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why back to 400kg? All others appear to be 450 (aero power) or 480 (912).This whole thing is confusing. Still can't see the difference between 25 and 55 registered.

Cheers

hey there ave8rr i train at coominya with john walmsley he did tell me the difference between the 2 abbreviation i cant remember at the moment,however call john and he will let you know he loves his lightwings as well just look up coominya flight training and give him a call.very approachable

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

55-XXXX Reg under CAO 101.55

 

24-XXXX Reg under CAO 95.55

 

The two CAO's have different weight restrictions - this might be what you are after - I don't know anything about the specific aircraft types.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55-XXXX Reg under CAO 101.5524-XXXX Reg under CAO 95.55

The two CAO's have different weight restrictions - this might be what you are after - I don't know anything about the specific aircraft types.

The Lightwings underwent a bit of design evolution before they got to the GR912 / GR912T (and perhaps even slightly in the earliest of those).

Because of Howie's determination to get crashworthiness into the structure, and Bill Whitney's (legendary) approach to structures, the Lightwing family have significant reserves of strength. This does not mean that just any Lightwing should be taken to 600kg! - the reserves generally aren't that big. They were forced into the - rather unjustified - weight and stall speed limitations of CAO 95:25, then CAO 101:55, which is where the 1000lb (450kg) / 1,200lb (544kg) and 40kts come from.

 

Lightwing have the build records, and would therefore be able - if they wanted - to determine the MTOW to which each airframe could be justified, outside of CAO 101:55.

 

I suspect that the knowledge gained with the Speed, is being applied to achieving an improved LSA GR-912 evolution; but Lightwings are NOT all identical, and only the factory can determine which pre-existing aircraft could safely be lifted to 600kg TOW - if any. The "new" one should be a fairly useful aeroplane.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
[ATTACH=full]29001[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]29002[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]29003[/ATTACH] Well almost done .

Nice. touch of Auster, touch of Porter, touch of Maule. Very nice to see an adequate vertical stabiliser for a change... and like the Austers, it's a NACA 230XX airfoil, which should reduce the trim drag and improve the stall speed a tad.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maj Millard

image.jpg.d8edb03d4f5a572feb7d6b7a0b68ab5c.jpg

 

Nice. touch of Auster, touch of Porter, touch of Maule. Very nice to see an adequate vertical stabiliser for a change... and like the Austers, it's a NACA 230XX airfoil, which should reduce the trim drag and improve the stall speed a tad.[/quote

Lightwings in my opinion have never suffered from lack of vertical fin surface...or rudder area for that matter. When the 912 was installed both were increased to counteract the increased foward weight and to assure better spin recovery should it be needed. If you have flown as many different Lightwing models as I have you would have noted that without exception all handle very well in an aggressive sideslip manoeuvre which is proof that these surfaces are well and adequetly proportioned, unlike on some other Aussie produced aircraft. The fin change on the new model has been further increased in area because the engine (weight) has also been put further foward. However the main change is in the curving of the surface in lue of the previous angular corners, which you will note was also incorporated into the speed line of aircraft. A curve always looks nicer than an angular change. Howie also knows the value of an aircraft to be able to sideslip well when needed. I feel the area behind the cabin is not as pretty as it could be on the new aircraft, and maybe they should have left it as it was originally flowing straight off the cabin roof. I do like the longer nose look though, and the full- view doors are a winner as I experienced while ferrying a Sport 2000 once with them.......Maj....

Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=full]29011[/ATTACH]

I was talking in terms of the multiplicity of recreational types - and some GA - with marginal or less VS, not saying this was a great step fowards for Lightwings 001_smile.gif.2cb759f06c4678ed4757932a99c02fa0.gif...

Bill was guided by Bruhn, and Howie was - to some degree - guided by Bill, so all the HW Lightwings represent an intersection of engineering conservatism and practical useability. I am not so much a fan of the long nose, because in the balked landing case such a prop position has a significant deleterious effect on pitch stability - if an aeroplane has the tailfeathers to handle it, it's less efficient than it would be without the hose nose. By eye, and from my limited GR-912T flying, the Lightwing should handle it...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maj Millard

I do like the clean up on the engine cowl, that should be good for some extra knots. A three blade prop is the way to go. As I said before the full view doors are a winner but from memory can't be open in flight like the original ones. With the prop further fwd stability in all axis should be enhanced. The Lightwing needs to be bought up into the 90 kt cruise range, the proper wing change would do it....not sure if they have done it on this one. This paint job is not that complimentary either..........but nice to see another new model emerge........Maj.......

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do like the clean up on the engine cowl, that should be good for some extra knots. A three blade prop is the way to go. As I said before the full view doors are a winner but from memory can't be open in flight like the original ones. With the prop further fwd stability in all axis should be enhanced. The Lightwing needs to be bought up into the 90 kt cruise range, the proper wing change would do it....not sure if they have done it on this one. This paint job is not that complimentary either..........but nice to see another new model emerge........Maj.......

It's actually quite a challenge to achieve a cruise speed of twice the stall speed, due to the induced drag going up as the 4th power of the speed coming down - that is, in order to have enough wing to be able to climb when close to stall speed, one has too much wing to go fast on low power. The limited speed range of fixed pitch propellors also challenges the top end...080_plane.gif.36548049f8f1bc4c332462aa4f981ffb.gif

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lightwings underwent a bit of design evolution before they got to the GR912 / GR912T (and perhaps even slightly in the earliest of those).Because of Howie's determination to get crashworthiness into the structure, and Bill Whitney's (legendary) approach to structures, the Lightwing family have significant reserves of strength. This does not mean that just any Lightwing should be taken to 600kg! - the reserves generally aren't that big. They were forced into the - rather unjustified - weight and stall speed limitations of CAO 95:25, then CAO 101:55, which is where the 1000lb (450kg) / 1,200lb (544kg) and 40kts come from.

Lightwing have the build records, and would therefore be able - if they wanted - to determine the MTOW to which each airframe could be justified, outside of CAO 101:55.

 

I suspect that the knowledge gained with the Speed, is being applied to achieving an improved LSA GR-912 evolution; but Lightwings are NOT all identical, and only the factory can determine which pre-existing aircraft could safely be lifted to 600kg TOW - if any. The "new" one should be a fairly useful aeroplane.

ive been in aircraft with both those designations however i didnt find no beer ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=full]29011[/ATTACH]

Hate to say it Maj, but the old model like yours and Doug's have much nicer lines, something just doesn't look right on the empennage compared to your models.

 

Awesome though that Lightwing have re -introduced the model again.

 

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, new model just doesn't cut it for me.

 

Alf

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just worried the long nose is to help with a weight problem down the back?

 

It is starting to grow on me....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...