Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 20:50:37 -0400 From: Jim Hocut Subject: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes Howard Rogers, in a reply to a post re. bearings gave some information related to static buildup on wings, etc. This leads me to suspect that maybe Howard (or possibly someone else) may have some knowledge of Precip Static as it applies composite aircraft (or more specifically it's prevention). I've attempted to research this subject, and so far have been able to find very little. I've experienced precipitation static several times before while in the clouds, and don't really care for being deaf and blind at the same time. Since I intend to do plenty of IFR with my Cozy I'd be plenty interested in any research into the prevention of P-Static in composite aircraft. Thanks, Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com From: "Krasa, Paul" Subject: RE: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 05:12:54 -0400 In one of the Canard Pushers is a story of a Vari Ese driver who got into clouds with static build up. I believe everyone who is considering IFR in a plastic airplane should read this article. Maybe Stet could email it to us. The article talks about how static gradually built up on the airplane. The story was scary. I have also saw a video of the Starship prototype when it was hit by lightning. The lightning blew holes out of the airplane. This occured because fiberglass is not a conductor, and the electrical charge will not pass through it without damage. The electrical charge will build up on the on the surface and when the charge builds up high enough, it discharges blowing holes through the skin. Don't believe me check this subject out for yourself. We should all know the limitations of our aircraft. Paul Krasa Long EZ 214LP !---*---! Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 05:33:45 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes In a message dated 96-10-17 10:21:37 EDT, you write: >In one of the Canard Pushers is a story of a Vari Ese driver who got >into clouds with static build up. I believe everyone who is >considering IFR in a plastic airplane should read this article. Maybe >Stet could email it to us. The article talks about how static gradually >built up on the airplane. The story was scary. Below is the article I believe Paul was referring to. It's long! Hope it makes it in one piece. Stet The following letters are concerning a lightning strike on a Long-EZ flown by Dick Kreidel. We certainly thank Dick for taking the time to write the account which Burt sent to Andy Plummer for his comments. Mr. Plummer is one of this countries leading authorities on lightning strikes and his letter is, also, reproduced here for all of us to read and inwardly digest. Pay attention, guys, our EZs are not indestructible, although many of us fly them as though they were. "I deliberated for a long time whether to publish this account of poor judgement and foolish mistakes. When I read it now, on the ground, three months later, the faulty reasoning is easy to see. But I assure you, that the decisions and events on May 23rd were made to the best of my ability and skills. My hope is that someone will benefit from my errors. It is a fine line between being around to tell a story and not being around. This account was originally sent to RAF for their comments. Burt passed it on to Andy Plummer of Lightning Technologies who is reputed to be the foremost lightning expert. Mr.Plummer's comments follows my tale...... I departed New Orleans Lakefront Airport IFR to El Paso at approximately 9:30 a.m. local on Sunday, May 23rd. I had received a thorough weather briefing from Flight Service only 20 minutes earlier and they indicated that westbound I shouldn't have much problems; rain showers and multiple cloud layers with tops at 14,000' to 16,000' MSL with a thin cirrus layer at 25,000'. Live Radar and FSS painted a line of thunderstorms about 20 miles south but it probably wouldn't arrive at Lakefront for at least an hour. I was cleared to 16,000' and had gone through multiple layers of cloud and picked up some light clear ice after a climb through 12,000'. I requested from ATC to hold at 14,000' for a while since I was between layers and the next ceiling didn't look as thin as advertised. The OAT at 14,000' was +1 degree C. I flew through some heavy rain and more ice accumulated on the plane, especially the canard, elevators and vortilons. The wing did not appear to have much ice on it and I could not see any on the winglets or the intersection between the wing and winglets. Indicated airspeed at 2400 RPM was 122 KIAS. The ice on the canard covered about 20-25 percent of the chord with some "streamers" that went back to perhaps to 50 percent chord line. Ice formed below the trailing edge of the elevator about 1/8" thick with a uniform spanwise distribution. The ice on the canard was definitely clear ice but what was below the trailing edge of the elevator looked more like mixed or rime ice. The elevator position was about 5/16"-3/8" T.E. down. The airplane was very controllable with good elevator responsiveness. I could have easily climbed if I had wanted to so I was not overly concerned. ATC was giving me radar vectors to stay clear of any CB's but indicated that contrary to my preflight weather briefing, the "weather west of New Orleans is really wicked with the big boys having trouble going through!" Center advised that the only way they felt would be O.K. would be to deviate approximately 60 nm due North - obviously I followed their recommendation. After a few minutes I was again in cloud and it became increasingly difficult to hear radio transmissions - static was all that came through the headset. I started receiving small electrical shocks from the roll trim lever through my jeans and shocks from the microphone to my lips. I became aware of the transparent blue glow that was on the nose and canard. I say blue but somehow it seemed blue with a pink tinge. The color was similar to the bright blue from a gas welders flame. This halo was about one chord width above the canard and seemed to "move" - it is very difficult to describe in words. I was now getting shocked through the speed brake handle and from the rudder pedals to my ankles (my feet were in the relaxed position forward of the pedals). The B&D tachometer was bouncing erratically from 500 RPM to full scale and both Nav CDI displays were swinging from stop to stop. The electric engine instruments were also useless - I didn't notice what the wet compass was doing. Here I was: IFR conditions, icing, no communication or navigation, thunderstorms and weird light. So far the ride was smooth with no rain or hail in the cloud - the cloud was not a dark, heavy one. The blue (pink) glow increased in intensity and its movement was more rapid. I am not sure but I believe that the blue glow was now inside the cockpit between my face and the instrument panel, but I could still easily read the gages; it was right out of the Twilight Zone. I saw a bright flash way ahead of me that seemed to go from left to right that really lit up the cloud I was in; I assumed that it was cloud to cloud lightning and that I was definitely in deep grease! The com was still all static and calls to center were unanswered (or perhaps unheard). I was so scared that I was sure that this would be the way it would all end and Kay (my wife) would really be pissed! I smelled a thick sweet odor, got one good shock from the microphone and then there was a tremendous flash of light and an incredibly loud "crack" - I felt it in my bones and chest as opposed to hearing it. I had been looking out at the right wing trying to figure out why the blue halo was not on the wings, only the canard, when the flash occurred. I was temporarily blinded so I removed my hand from the stick hoping I wouldn't enter a spiral dive. When I could see again (10-15 seconds), to my amazement 1) I was still alive and 2) the plane was still level at 14,000' on my last assigned heading of 060 degrees. The blue halo was gone and I heard a transmission on the com for a Delta jet. I called center to see if my radio was blown and they immediately answered my call! Apparently they had been trying to reach me to give me a new vector and immediately turned me to 330 degrees. The airplane was again between layers and the visibility was good, I could even see patches below. Everything appeared to be working O.K. but the plane still had a lot of ice on it and I didn't think I was in any mental state to fly an approach. The airspeed now read less the 50 knots so I knew that the pitot tube had iced over. The weather seemed to be improving rapidly with a broken layer above and below with some beautiful blue sky far in the distance. Since the plane would easily climb with full power and the remaining aft stick I saw no reason to descend and kill myself making a lousy IFR approach after all of this! I then saw several dark patches on the wing and winglet leading edges that upon later inspection were areas where only the glass skin remained. In about 20 minutes all of the ice melted and the elevator position returned to 1/16" T.E. up and the airspeed increased to 140 KIAS at the same power setting of 2400 RPM. The flight continued normally in IFR and I landed at El Paso International four hours later. So what is there to learn from this unwanted experience? Probably several things. First, that the invincibility I felt in B888EZ contributed to my cavalier attitude in flying in bad weather - this certainly was not the "California IFR" that I was used to. After nearly 1100 hours of flying in a plastic cocoon, I had developed a false sense of immortality - after all, the EZ had gotten me through some tough situations before. Also, I learned to never, ever trust ATC and/or FSS - the pilot must make his own decisions and evaluations on when to commence or terminate a flight. CP53, Page 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Another significant revelation is that although the Long-EZ is a great plane and can leap tall buildings with a single bound, it is not suited for hard IFR flights with embedded thunderstorms. I consider myself extremely lucky to have survived this flight - my skill and judgment (or more correctly - lack of both) hopefully will serve me better in the future. Dick Kreidel" **SKETCHES OMITTED** FIG. I Ice distribution on canard and elevators. FIG. II Ice on vortilons. LIGHTNING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 10 Downing Parkway, Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201 (413)499-2135 22 July 1987 Subject: Long-EZ Lightning Strike Reference: Your Letter of 3 June 1987, Same Subject, with Dick Kriedel's Letter Attached Dear Burt: I have studied the interesting account of a lightning strike to a Long-EZ by Pilot Dick Kreidel, accompanying your letter of 3 June, and have the following comments: 1. After beginning the deviation North, the aircraft entered an electrically charged region, as indicated by the static in the communications system, "small electrical shocks" and "blue glow" (corona) on aircraft extremities. The electric shocks were due to electric field penetration of the non-conductive fiberglass airframe. The erratic behavior of the instruments was also due to electric field interaction with the interconnecting wiring. It is very likely the the corona was indeed occurring inside the cockpit as Mr. Kreidel suspected. 2. The synoptic weather conditions reported by the pilot are very characteristic of those reported by other operators when lightning strikes have occurred (~14,000 ft; icing, precipitation, within a cloud, OAT +/- 5 degrees of freezing). Apparently the aircraft was near embedded thunderstorm cells, though lightning strikes have been known to originate in "layered" clouds as well as CB clouds. 3. The "flash of light" and "loud crack" indicate a lightning strike, although evidently one of mild intensity as indicated by the comparatively minor effects on the aircraft. At 14,000 ft. it is likely that the aircraft encountered a branch of a flash, rather than the main channel of a cloud-to-earth flash; as illustrated in the following sketch. **SKETCH OMITTED** 4. The electric currents in a branch (of which there are a lot in a typical flash structure) are usually much less than that in the main channel. Even so, the flash and noise can be frightening if experienced close at hand. 5. Apparently the lightning current entered one wing tip (take your pick) and exited from the other, being conducted by internal metal conductors between. The amount of damage to the fiberglass and foam structures indicates a very mild strike - perhaps 5 kiloamperes or less (Part 23 rules require an airframe to tolerate 200 kiloamperes). Comments 1. Pilot Kreidel was lucky! A more severe strike may well have caused major structural damage and lethal voltage difference among metal objects in the cockpit (column, pedals, headphones, etc.) as well as severe damage to internal electrical conductors such as control cables, hinges, bearings, rods, electrical wiring, etc. These voltages and currents can be far in excess of fatal levels. Electric fields and lightning strikes themselves will directly penetrate unprotected fiberglass structures, attracted by metal objects within - not matter how small. 2. This is another example of the fact that ATC cannot be relied upon to vector an aircraft safely around- and clear of - hazardous thunderstorms. Controllers are not provided with sufficient (and timely) information for this purpose. Even though avoiding areas of heavy precipitation the aircraft ran into an electrically active region. 3. This incident is not a good example of what would occur to a Long-EZ in a lightning strike. A "full threat" stroke would likely have ripped a hole a foot in diameter through the composite and vaporized small diameter control cables and interconnecting wiring. The accompanying shock waves would have caused extensive internal damage, delamination, etc. I doubt very much whether the aircraft or pilot could have survived such a strike. Recommendation 1. Continue to warn pilots of this class of aircraft to stay VFR and avoid "weather" clouds, precipitation and icing within 5 degrees of the freezing level should especially be avoided. 2. This Long-EZ should be thoroughly inspected to be sure that there has not been damage to any internal metal parts. All internal parts should be inspected. It is quite probable, for example, that this strike burned some strands of control cables, electrical wires, etc. Thank you for sharing this interesting account with me. Please give me a call if you have any further questions. Yours truly, J.A. Plumer, President Lightning Technologies, Inc. Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:42:58 -0400 From: Jim Hocut Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes I remember the article very well about the EZ driver who took a lightning hit. (Rule #1 from instrument flight training - stay at least 20 miles away from CB's and NEVER count on ATC radar vectors for weather avoidance). I get the impression there is a bit of confusion about P-Static (an annoyance) vs. Lightning (a DANGER). Precipitation static manifests itself as RF noise when enough static electricity builds up on the skin of an aircraft. Metal airplanes counter this by using static wicks on trailing edges to bleed off this static buildup and keep the RF interference to a minimum. This has nothing to do with flying in or near thunderstorms. I think we all know that lightning happens in thunderstorms, and yes, I will have a stormscope on board and stay a healthy distance away from these monsters. I asked the question because I just don't believe that static wicks will be effective on a non-conductive airplane. I've located a small amount of research on this subject in the NASA archives, but so have only been able to get ahold of abstracts of the reports, not the full reports themselves. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:36:09 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes Jim Hocut wrote: >I remember the article very well about the EZ driver who took a lightning >hit. (Rule #1 from instrument flight training - stay at least 20 miles >away from CB's and NEVER count on ATC radar vectors for weather avoidance). > I get the impression there is a bit of confusion about P-Static (an >annoyance) vs. Lightning (a DANGER). >Precipitation static manifests itself as RF noise when enough static >electricity builds up on the skin of an aircraft. Metal airplanes counter >this by using static wicks on trailing edges to bleed off this static >buildup and keep the RF interference to a minimum. This has nothing to do >with flying in or near thunderstorms. I think we all know that lightning >happens in thunderstorms, and yes, I will have a stormscope on board and >stay a healthy distance away from these monsters. >I asked the question because I just don't believe that static wicks will be >effective on a non-conductive airplane. I've located a small amount of >research on this subject in the NASA archives, but so have only been able to >get ahold of abstracts of the reports, not the full reports themselves. I am no lightning and static expert other than in the practical sense that I am responsible for over 70 radio communications towers (also known as lightning rods). As a thought from an electronics person (me): If static can build up on something (ie a Cessna or a Cozy), it can also be shed. Simple concept. Why wouldn't static wicks work on plastic planes as well as they do on metal planes? Anyone know the answer? Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 Ch-6, Step 2. Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:40:19 -0400 From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com Subject: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes >This is in response to the very detailed story about lightning strikes on a plastic airplane. Very good information. Hope to never be there in any airplane!!! Have any conclusions been developed from the metal mesh inclusion in the Lancair Mark IV test program. I believe they were testing designs to dissapate an electrical charge safely out of the aircraft? (it may have been a Glassair???) Would placing a fine metal mesh (screen) on the wings below the glass layups alone be helpful, or would the entire aircraft need to be covered? (my fuselage is already layed up) Are static wicks on the trailing edges also needed to get the charge out of the aircraft? (in combination with some type of hybrid metal layer that is electrically continuous) If a metal mesh were used, would it be considered structural or would it take away from structural integrity or have no effect? Could a layer of fiberglass cloth be left out or are we adding dead weight? I think they were concerned with charges building up in the fuel tanks without a pathway out??? ka boom. If anyone has first hand knowledge of actual test data it would be good to see if it is positive or a mistake to not repeat. Steve Blank Cozy Mark IV #36 sblankdds@aol.com Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:46:43 -0500 From: Mahan Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes SBLANKDDS@aol.com wrote: Have any conclusions been developed from the metal mesh inclusion in the Lancair Mark IV test program. I believe they were testing designs to dissapate an electrical charge safely out of the aircraft? (it may have been a Glassair???) It was a Glasair, a Glasair III, to be exact. Now if you buy a Glasair III kit, the built-in lightening protection is an option for a little more money. Fred From: "John R. Rogers" Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:58:47 -0500 >>snip< > It was a Glasair, a Glasair III, to be exact. Now if you buy a Glasair > III kit, the built-in lightening protection is an option for a little > more money. > > Fred Wasn't the research a joint project between NASA @ Stoddard Hamilton? If so, shouldn't the information be available us? John R. Rogers >Still Dreaming (I think I will reread the post on how to sell a spouse) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:43:28 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes John R. Rogers wrote: > > Wasn't the research a joint project between NASA @ Stoddard Hamilton? actually not: it was a joint project between lightning technologies and stoddard-hamilton; participating in the small business innovative research program; overseen by nasa. the dod and nasa have a decent sum of money that is used to foster technology development and use by small companies... check your local web search engine for "sbir". > If so, shouldn't the information be available us? yes, but for a price :) part of the deal is that the participating companies own the rights to the technology/research (although, of course, the government retains rights to use the technology/research for governmental purposes since they paid for it...) this is as far as i understand it and nearly as clear as i can explain it. --- bil kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:04:08 -0700 From: berkut@loop.com Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes >SBLANKDDS@aol.com wrote: > Have any conclusions been developed from the metal mesh inclusion >in the Lancair Mark IV test program. I believe they were testing >designs to dissapate an electrical charge safely out of the aircraft? >(it may have been a Glassair???) > >It was a Glasair, a Glasair III, to be exact. Now if you buy a Glasair >III kit, the built-in lightening protection is an option for a little >more money. > >Fred > The last time I talked to Glassair about this (at least a year ago, maybe two) they hadn't sold any with the option. It was fairly expensive. NASA funded the study. It wasn't so much to dissapate static and make the skin conductive so lightning wouldn't blow a hole in the composite and vaporize things like strobe wires. Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:15:08 -0400 From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes -Reply Rego Burger wrote: >I've seen guys with wicks on the main gear, dragging behind the >main wheel, this discharges on touch down as well ? ( Inboard of >the gear ) Earth is the neutralising factor for static in most >cases. >The thought I had was to run a thin conductor along the leading >edges of the winglets and out to the trailing edge, a small tip >exposed on top of the winglet would " attract " the lighting. This >could be linked to a trailing edge strip for discharge. >Snipe> Rego and all, This got a bit longer than intended; hope someone finds it usefull. Just a word of warning: a "thin" strip of metal might be worse than nothing at all as far as lightning is concerned. A lightning strike would vaporize the metal and everything around it. Our communications towers are bonded (welded) to many 4/0 size (about the size of a thumb) copper cables which are in turn bonded to an extensive network of bonded, burried copper. What we do is provide an easy path for the lightning rather than try to stop it. Stopping it means making a huge distance between metal things (think of the distances between clouds.... BIG. A thin strip of metal would act more like a fuse than anything else. Having nothing would act more like greater distance. The distances in an airplane are still insignificant for lightning though. I could share some interesting observations about lightning strikes (at ground level), but not sure it would be much more than entertainment. Let me see if I can shed some light on the TWO subject(s) based on my experiences without getting too technical and boring. I realize that not evryone knows about electricity, but I'll attempt to relate it to what may be common to all of us. This is all FWW, and I will include the standard disclaimer: I am no "expert" and have nothing to gain personnaly from any of this except more knowledge. First we need to recognize that there is a distinct difference between lightning and static. We are dealing with TWO distinct subjects. One may lead to the other, but there are two distinct processes involved. Lightning is an arc; not unlike the arc which occurs on an arc welder. Simply put, it is a an electric current which is produced between two points and caused by a difference in potential energy (voltage) between the points. An easy way to think about it might be similar to the difference between the air in an air compressor tank and free air. With the valves closed, the air tank contains a "potential difference" between the air inside and the air outside. If the tank were to suddenly split, the air inside would jump across the "gap" between the inside air and outside air. The gap is normally only as small as the tank's wall thickness. Of course we all know that such a thing happens very quickly, causes a sonic boom, and damages lots of stuff in the exchange. Same kind of thing applies to electricity, your welder, and lightning. The welder is a "controlled" arc; kind of like the pressure regulator on the air compressor. Lightning is uncontrolled; similar to the sudden tank split. Static buildup, on the other hand, is more like the air compressor compressing the air and storing it in the tank. The pressure just keeps building unless there is some relief built in (or the tank splits). If there were a small hole in the tank, the compressor would keep shoving in air, and the hole would allow it to escape; an eqalibrium results based on the size of the compressor and the size of the hole. If the compressor stops (ie we land), the small hole eventually discharges ALL of the air. If we fly into an area where the static generating capability is greater than the airplane's capability to shed it, the plane will, eventually reach it's discharge point (also depending on moisture and lots of other stuff) and cause an arc {maybe even between you and the microphone} {maybe between the plane and surrounding air}. Small holes (wicks) in our static tank would be just fine as long as they were sized "right" (whatever that is) to keep up with the compressor. In our case, we want to be able to stay ahead of "normal" (whatever that is) static buildup to the point where small discharges (arcs) cannot occur. Keep the pressure in the tank as low as "Practical". What I am suggesting is that we should be able to make some kind of hole in our static "tank" to help keep the compressor from blowing the tank. The trick of course, is to stay completely away from high capacity compressors (ie storms), because they are much bigger than any tiny relief we may be able to provide. A series of wicks on the trailing edges, on landing gear, etc WOULD act as small holes in an air tank. Unfortunately, our static tank (airplane) has a lot of baffels in it (resistance to electricity because it's plastic) and doesn't allow the static (compressed air) to move about very easily. What this means is that the wicks would appear to be smaller holes (less effective) than if the plane were made of aluminum. They would still work however, just not as well..... I think. Many of us have been zapped by a car when getting out. A strap that touches the ground before we do, is a good place to start. Hope this helps. Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 Ch-6 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:16:08 -0400 From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes >> Why wouldn't static wicks work on plastic planes as well >> as they do on metal planes? Anyone know the answer? >> >> Larry Schuler >> MKIV-#500 Ch-6, Step 2. >Because the entire surface is an insulator. Think of the static wick as a >sort of ground-wire drain for charge. If you attatch one ground wire to >an aluminum plane at the fuel island, the whole thing drains its static >off because the whole thing is essentially a conductor. To drain off the >charge on a large piece of plastic, attaching a single ground wire to one >wing, would do little to relieve the other wing of its charge. In fact, >you might have to attatch a gazillion ground wires to get the job done. >Anyway, I'm not sure that the simple buildup of charge is responsible for >P-static on your radio, though. I was always under the impression that it >was the little discharges between areas of differing potential that create >the noise. These differences occur, even on a nicely-conducting aluminum >wing, because of the very rapid and dynamic effect of slipstream flow over >various parts of the curvature, with the resultant differences in density, >and therefore the difference of rate of charge accumulation. >--Howard Rogers, 415-926-4052 >hrogers@slac.stanford.edu I see the point/multi-point (pun intended). :-) If I understand you correctly, the potential (voltage) diference builds up quicker than it can be shed to a single point. That IS a problem. Sounds like a big capacitor with a power supply to charge it and a meg-ohm resistor to discharge it; using diodes to isolate the power source from the resitor. Hmmmmm. I still believe that if a potential difference can be built, it can also be un-built; unless it's perpetual motion, just a matter of time/method etc. Just some stuff for the brain cells: If I rub a baloon on my cloths to develope a static charge (most of us have done that), it WILL eventually lose that charge. How long will it take to discharge? Why is it longer than the developement of the charge? Is there a way to make it discharge faster than putting it on a wall and waiting for it to fall off? I have also rubbed my leather shoes on the carpet (works best in the winter) to build up a charge so I could touch a sister's ear and zap her. Funny how I could walk all over (sometimes run) to get her before it discharged, but was able to completely discharge in a single touch. We won't talk about reactive damage (to me). :-) So possible solutions are, to name a few (shooting from the hip): 1. Imbed a wire mesh in the glass matrix and foam, connecting all together and also to ALL metal parts of the plane. Solid metal would be better than mesh because it has more conduting points. 2. Develop a conducting epoxy. 3. Stay out of static-making situations [whatever those are]. 4. Make a warning device; if there is a difference of potental build up between two insulated metal parts of the plane, such as the two axels of the main gear, monitor it. If it exceeds a pe-defined level, provide a warning so we can do a 180. Kind of like a stall warning. There's an idea.... Anyone care to connect a voltmeter to their landing gear and go fly in a number of weather situations to see if this works? I would, but my plane is under construction. 5.. Don't fly glass; how awfull!! 6. Paint the plane with a conducting paint (it IS available). Just thinking out loud, Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 Ch-6 From: garfield@pilgrimhouse.com (Garfield) Subject: Re: COZY: P-Static and Plastic Planes Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 01:02:47 GMT Organization: Pilgrim House On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:43:28 -0400, william l kleb wrote: >John R. Rogers wrote: >>=20 >> Wasn't the research a joint project between NASA @ Stoddard Hamilton? > >actually not: it was a joint project between lightning technologies >and stoddard-hamilton; participating in the small business innovative >research program; overseen by nasa. the dod and nasa have a decent >sum of money that is used to foster technology development and use >by small companies... check your local web search engine for "sbir". > >> If so, shouldn't the information be available us? > >yes, but for a price :) part of the deal is that the participating >companies own the rights to the technology/research (although, >of course, the government retains rights to use the technology/research >for governmental purposes since they paid for it...) > >this is as far as i understand it and nearly as clear as i can >explain it. Explained precisely, seems to me, Bil. Here is the URL. It is considered "old" news on the Exhibits page and may disappear soon. Sad that this kind of safety technology is still held in private hands. There has got to be SOMEONE that knows the basics of what was found to work. Anyone friends with Stoddard-Hamilton who could convince them to release at least some details that would help the experimental aviation community, especially if it is true as another poster said, that they haven't sold all that many of them anyway?! Sheesh, I understand they had to spend money to develop it, but it's still kinda like keeping CPR a secret because you helped fund it's development. Sigh. http://sunkj.larc.nasa.gov/tops/Exhibits/Ex_B-129/Ex_B-129.html Garfield, (still hoping for some way to make a Cozy truly IFR-worthy)