white lightning

[mansour]

I am interested in the "White lightning Wlac-1" and I would wish to
obtain all technical information relating to it. For examples:
airfoils used (wing, empennage etc....
I would be also purchaser of certain parts of the Kit or plans.
This plane it was built in Europe?.
Thank you to answer as detailed as French, English or Italian
possible.

[Fitzair4]

We named it Nick's White Lead Airplane. We built up 3 fuselages and many parts
back in the 1980's for Nick. It was just over built. He had 4 or more companies
built
up the kits. The last I was told a couple years ago, the molds were
destroyed and taken to a dump.

Larry

[wmbjk]

"Fitzair4" > wrote in message
...

> We named it Nick's White Lead Airplane. We built up 3 fuselages and
many parts
> back in the 1980's for Nick. It was just over built.

The canopies in particular needed to be extra heavy so they'd stay shut
without latches. ;-)

Wayne

[RobertR237]

In article >, "wmbjk" > writes:

>
>> We named it Nick's White Lead Airplane. We built up 3 fuselages and
>many parts
>> back in the 1980's for Nick. It was just over built.
>
>The canopies in particular needed to be extra heavy so they'd stay shut
>without latches. ;-)
>
>Wayne
>
>

I saw one at the Kerrville flyin a few years back. Slick looking airplane that
you wear. The interior was very tight and the rear seat passengers needed to
be slight and had to face the rear. Looked like sex and speed in one tight
little package.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> We named it Nick's White Lead Airplane. We built up 3 fuselages and
>many parts
>> back in the 1980's for Nick. It was just over built.
>
>The canopies in particular needed to be extra heavy so they'd stay shut
>without latches. ;-)
>
>Wayne
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nice quip, but.....
Will Latchless Larry see the humor?


Barnyard BOb - don't fown, snile.

[Jay]

Noticed White Lightning used the same back to back seating I've been
playing with for my concept design:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/concept.html

Seemed like the only reasonable way to handle the CG for a wing with a
relatively high aspect.

[Larry Smith]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "wmbjk" >
writes:
>
> >
> >> We named it Nick's White Lead Airplane. We built up 3 fuselages and
> >many parts
> >> back in the 1980's for Nick. It was just over built.
> >
> >The canopies in particular needed to be extra heavy so they'd stay shut
> >without latches. ;-)
> >
> >Wayne
> >
> >
>
> I saw one at the Kerrville flyin a few years back. Slick looking airplane
that
> you wear. The interior was very tight and the rear seat passengers needed
to
> be slight and had to face the rear. Looked like sex and speed in one
tight
> little package.
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

I'm 6'1" and 225 and never felt cramped in a Lightning, front or rear, 4
passengers or 2. Matter of fact, if you are in the rear seat your foot
room is a great luxury.

[Larry Smith]

"Barnyard BOob --" > brayed in message
...
>

Same ol' stuff from same ol' wind instrument.

Hey, Methuselah, the latches on my 1940's puddlejumper are more functional
than the body-fluid- patinaed baling wire holding the grimy plexy on your
ratplane.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Jay) wrote:

> Noticed White Lightning used the same back to
> back seating I've been playing with for my
> concept design...
> Seemed like the only reasonable way to handle
> the CG for a wing with a relatively high aspect.

Actually, John Roncz explored back-to-back seating for a design that
he was doing. But he abandoned that plan after discovering that it
made only a very small difference in the CG of the seated occupant. I
think that he weighed that small advantage against the discomfort that
many potential passengers expressed with traveling backwards.

I think that this episode is described in a series of articles that he
published in Sport Aviation in 1990. According to this, I think it was
in either the May 1990 or the February 1991 article:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/sportavi90.html

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

[RobertR237]

In article >, "Larry Smith"
> writes:

>
>I'm 6'1" and 225 and never felt cramped in a Lightning, front or rear, 4
>passengers or 2. Matter of fact, if you are in the rear seat your foot
>room is a great luxury.
>

Yep, foot room was a great luxury but head and shoulder room makes for some
good friends. ;-)


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Jay]

Depending on the amount of leg room you allow and how much the seat is
reclined, I got about 3 feet difference in passenger CG. And I'm not
counting the kind of seating where the guy in back's legs go around
the guy in front's seat (Soneri?).

At take off and landing the backwards seat could be a little wierd,
but at cruise altitude, you can hardly tell the difference. Flown
backwards several times on commercial jets and didn't even notice once
we were airborne.

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
>...
> Earlier, (Jay) wrote:
>
> > Noticed White Lightning used the same back to
> > back seating I've been playing with for my
> > concept design...
> > Seemed like the only reasonable way to handle
> > the CG for a wing with a relatively high aspect.
>
> Actually, John Roncz explored back-to-back seating for a design that
> he was doing. But he abandoned that plan after discovering that it
> made only a very small difference in the CG of the seated occupant. I
> think that he weighed that small advantage against the discomfort that
> many potential passengers expressed with traveling backwards.
>
> I think that this episode is described in a series of articles that he
> published in Sport Aviation in 1990. According to this, I think it was
> in either the May 1990 or the February 1991 article:
>
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/sportavi90.html
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Jay wrote:

> ...Depending on the amount of leg room you
> allow and how much the seat is reclined,
> I got about 3 feet difference in passenger
> CG...

Interesting. Roncz got only a couple of inches difference. That's why
he didn't bother.

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[DJFawcett26]

>> ...Depending on the amount of leg room you
>> allow and how much the seat is reclined,
>> I got about 3 feet difference in passenger
>> CG...

If there is a 3 ft. shift in cg with passenger mass, I suspect either your
calculations, the mass distribution analysis, or the wing placement is wrong.

Cg shifts are predicated on the overall mass distribution. If a passenger can
shift the cg 3 ft., something is wrong, especially on a two place airplane (I
am assuming this is the airplane that was on the linked website).

[Rick Pellicciotti]

This can't be right. If you stop and think about it, the most the CG could
move would be the distance that the center of mass of the passenger changed.
Maybe a foot at most.

rick

"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> Depending on the amount of leg room you allow and how much the seat is
> reclined, I got about 3 feet difference in passenger CG. And I'm not
> counting the kind of seating where the guy in back's legs go around
> the guy in front's seat (Soneri?).
>
> At take off and landing the backwards seat could be a little wierd,
> but at cruise altitude, you can hardly tell the difference. Flown
> backwards several times on commercial jets and didn't even notice once
> we were airborne.
>
> (Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
> >...
> > Earlier, (Jay) wrote:
> >
> > > Noticed White Lightning used the same back to
> > > back seating I've been playing with for my
> > > concept design...
> > > Seemed like the only reasonable way to handle
> > > the CG for a wing with a relatively high aspect.
> >
> > Actually, John Roncz explored back-to-back seating for a design that
> > he was doing. But he abandoned that plan after discovering that it
> > made only a very small difference in the CG of the seated occupant. I
> > think that he weighed that small advantage against the discomfort that
> > many potential passengers expressed with traveling backwards.
> >
> > I think that this episode is described in a series of articles that he
> > published in Sport Aviation in 1990. According to this, I think it was
> > in either the May 1990 or the February 1991 article:
> >
> > http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/sportavi90.html
> >
> > Thanks, and best regards to all
> >
> > Bob K.

[Model Flyer]

"wmbjk" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fitzair4" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > We named it Nick's White Lead Airplane. We built up 3 fuselages
and
> many parts
> > back in the 1980's for Nick. It was just over built.
>
> The canopies in particular needed to be extra heavy so they'd stay
shut
> without latches. ;-)
>

Yeh, I get that one.
Lol
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
modelflyer at antispam dot net

Antispam trap in place



> Wayne
>
>

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
DJFawcett26 > wrote:
>>> ...Depending on the amount of leg room you
>>> allow and how much the seat is reclined,
>>> I got about 3 feet difference in passenger
>>> CG...
>
>If there is a 3 ft. shift in cg with passenger mass, I suspect either your
>calculations, the mass distribution analysis, or the wing placement is wrong.
>
>Cg shifts are predicated on the overall mass distribution. If a passenger can
>shift the cg 3 ft., something is wrong, especially on a two place airplane (I
>am assuming this is the airplane that was on the linked website).

READING LESSON:
He said a 3 ft difference in the *passenger*cg*.
i.e. the length of the moment arm assigned to the weight of the PASSENGER.

It will have a _far_smaller_ effect on the AIRCRAFT c/g.

[Jay]

Thats exactly the distance I was referring to, the distance between
the center of mass of the passenger for the 2 different seat
positions.

As I'm sure people know, you like to put the variable loads as close
to the balance point of the A/C as possible to that as fuel varies,
passengers get in out out, or the pilots weight goes up and down, the
plane remains stable and flyable.

So in the back to back seating config, everybodies butt is pretty
close to that point.

Regards

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message news:<3f0c8596$1@ham>...
> This can't be right. If you stop and think about it, the most the CG could
> move would be the distance that the center of mass of the passenger changed.
> Maybe a foot at most.
>
> rick
>
> "Jay" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Depending on the amount of leg room you allow and how much the seat is
> > reclined, I got about 3 feet difference in passenger CG. And I'm not
> > counting the kind of seating where the guy in back's legs go around
> > the guy in front's seat (Soneri?).
> >
> > At take off and landing the backwards seat could be a little wierd,
> > but at cruise altitude, you can hardly tell the difference. Flown
> > backwards several times on commercial jets and didn't even notice once
> > we were airborne.
> >
> > (Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > Earlier, (Jay) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Noticed White Lightning used the same back to
> > > > back seating I've been playing with for my
> > > > concept design...
> > > > Seemed like the only reasonable way to handle
> > > > the CG for a wing with a relatively high aspect.
> > >
> > > Actually, John Roncz explored back-to-back seating for a design that
> > > he was doing. But he abandoned that plan after discovering that it
> > > made only a very small difference in the CG of the seated occupant. I
> > > think that he weighed that small advantage against the discomfort that
> > > many potential passengers expressed with traveling backwards.
> > >
> > > I think that this episode is described in a series of articles that he
> > > published in Sport Aviation in 1990. According to this, I think it was
> > > in either the May 1990 or the February 1991 article:
> > >
> > > http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/sportavi90.html
> > >
> > > Thanks, and best regards to all
> > >
> > > Bob K.