This is what happens when a light GA aircraft gets struck by lightning (SR22 F-GUHM)

VMC and VFR but in the vicinity of a TS.

Do these pictures show the r/h (upper one) and l/h wingtip?
There are lightning strikes of totally different intensity – but to define it as a lightning strike one should find the place where the lightning strikes (enters) the aircraft and the place(s) where it leaves again. Mostly little holes about one cent wide in diameter .
Otherwise the above photos could show the traces of a heavy static discharge which of course takes place in a thunderstorm environment. When you are piloting an aircraft in darkness you will have the impression of switching a strong landing light on and off.

C210_Flyer wrote:

The amount of misinformation thrown about on this site is amassing and really needs to have a truth police monitoring it.

I did not throw around any misinformation. I added that everything was just conjecture and I was interested in kowing more about the circumstances.

And I have not seen anyone faulting the pilot for anything. I am still curious about the circumstances.

So please get down from your high horse C210_Flyer, and don’t beak a leg in the process.

@nobbi , affirm. Definately the strike was not that intensive. Raimo thought that it entered on one wing tip and left on the other one. It was in daylight but felt like a strike for him.

VMC and VFR but in the vicinity of a TS.

It had to be pretty close to a CB. The stuff isn’t going to jump out 20nm to one side.

Also few will say it happened in IMC because on a homebuilt they won’t get the insurance payout

It is registered in Finland, so no problems with homebuilts flying IFR

Peter wrote:

The stuff isn’t going to jump out 20nm to one side.

Be careful with that, especially in Florida

Aviathor wrote:

I suppose the airplane was equipped with at least a stormscope? If so, I guess this is a good example of how insufficient that equipment is to keep you out of TS.

Now one can only read that sentence in one way. If the pilot had a SS (a presumption) then it is a good reason not to trust it because it will not keep someone from blundering into a TS (presumption) because the equipment is insufficient in doing so (another presumption).

Firstly if you do have apiece of equipment you have to know how to use it which includes knowing its strong and weak points. Just like on board WX radar. The second thing is that you presume that he flew into a thunderstorm when as I and some have pointed out you can be many miles from a storm and still get struck. Of course now that I reviewed my contribution I can see that it was removed because it confused people.

So someone reading your post, that have no experience flying with a SS would assume that the equipment is unreliable and allow a pilot to blunder into a storm. Why because as we all know nobody willing flies into a TS with a GA aircraft. Now he may very well have blundered into a TS but unless his equipment was malfunctioning highly unlikely. Even the US military who had a policy of mission first prohibited B52s from flying into TS during the Vietnam war because after some that did they were so damaged as to be unairworthy and had to be scrapped.

Of course we have to look at the whole thread in context of what the original poster said.

LFHNflightstudent wrote:

Bit of a case of get there-itis when the owner got talked into flying from Grenoble to Marseille when he didn’t really think the weather was good enough for it.

Would the owner have said the same thing if he wasnt struck by lightening and the flight ended without damage? Getting hit by lightening is not rare but fairly uncommon.
Est war est nicht. or Ich bin nicht schuld.

I just dont want people to get the wrong impression.

So no reason to knock the messenger off his horse.

So someone reading your post, that have no experience flying with a SS would assume that the equipment is unreliable and allow a pilot to blunder into a storm.

Hopefully nobody will base their judgement on only one post. Someone reading your posts might think it is perfectly safe to venture into convective weather as long as you have a SS.

My comment is partly based on one lightning encounter I had, which I related here, after which I clearly question the reliability of SS to keep you out of electrical activity.

I read the manuals of any new equipment I fly with (Wx500), and generally do additional research to understand the finer points. I have read this thread as well as this related thread and observe that opinions about SS differ. At one end of the scale this article posted by NCYankee, as well as posts by USFlyer almost seem to indicate that SS is superior to Nexrad or similar (ground-based weather radar images) for TS avoidance. My own experience as well as some other posts tell me otherwise.

Fortunately I have little experience with flying around convective activity because I avoid flying in areas where such activity is forecast (except that one time where I relied on the SS to avoid isolated cells), because I have so far mostly been flying airplanes with very limited capabilities, thereby putting me in the middle of the muck in the summer.

I will get a little bolder now with ADL130 AND SS combined. and flying airplanes with higher ceilings and climb performance.