Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:20 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
2. 07:10 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Pete)
3. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Daniel Vandenberg)
4. 11:03 AM - Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions (Daniel Vandenberg)
5. 01:19 PM - Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (jackb911)
6. 01:39 PM - Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Brian Whittingham)
7. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (nick otterback)
8. 03:44 PM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Pete)
9. 04:56 PM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
In a message dated 8/18/2006 12:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Brian Whittingham"
<dashvii@hotmail.com>
IMile for mile, the Lightning should fly at a lower fuel cost. Engine
maintenance - I haven't talked with enough Jabiru people to feel like I have
a good comparison. It is easy to take the Lycoming O-360 to several places
near home no matter where you live for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't
have the same options. It continues to suffer from heating issues but seems
to be a great little engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru
might be the Rotax 912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe
use the Rotax with favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there
are not as many service options.
Just noting that the 3300 Jabiru horsepower exceeds both the 912 and
troublesom 914...for less money than either. Also much easier to install a Jab
engine that a 912. Every 912 install looks like a plumbers nightmare. Also
note that a 912 should be considered a "throw away" engine. Overhauls equal the
price of a new engine.
Maintenance of 1930's engine such as the Continental or Lycoming is not
cheap. Changing spark plugs for $1.77 each on a Jab is very different that $15
or 20 each for the others. And there is the matter of engine weight. It is
like having an extra passenger along on each flight.
I would also note that constructing an RV takes at least 10 times as long
as a Lightning. Just visit some local guy trying to build one as he is
constructing the fuselage. I suspect half of the airframe weight is from rivets.
Doug Koenigsberg
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" <pete@flylightning.net>
All,
Here's a email that has me just chomping at the bit to correct some real
inaccuracies from someone who didn't sign his name!
Let's start with stability for cross country. We had the opportunity to fly
a RV-6 for a few hours a few weeks ago to compare handling. The RV was
great but - the Lightning was its equal. The Lightning was more stable in
roll and about the same in pitch. The RV pitch forces got quite heavy with
advancing speed while Lightning's did not. If you are equating the
stability of Lightning to Esqual you are on the wrong track and your are
putting out an opinion not based on any fact. The Lightning is much
different from the Esqual in handling, stability, control response, and
general flight qualities. It is a more substantial aircraft all around.
The Lightning cruises 5 knots slower than the 160 hp RV 6 that we flew. On
a three hour flight that would equate to 6 minutes difference. Yes - it is
a bit slower but it uses 5.5 gph vs the 9 that the RV was using. On that
three hour flight with gas at $4.00 it cost $42 to gain those 6 minutes.
Engine maintenance is probably easier with the Jabiru engine. If you are out
in the boondocks you can get Jabiru plugs, dust caps, rotors, and even mags
at most auto stores. Try walking into your autozone in a town where there
is no aircraft maintenance and asking for parts for your Lycoming mag!
Granted, there are not many A&P's with Jabiru experience but the number is
growing and in a few short years there will be a selection of places near
home where you can take your Jabiru engine for repairs that cost far, far
less than a Lycoming repair.
As far as the "heating issues" you mention with Jabiru: those are
installation issues that are no fault of the engine. If a Lycoming was
installed with the same engineering as most of the Jabiru's with "heating
issues" were installed you'd be telling us about Lycomings with heating
issues - but you'd have to leave off the bit about smooth running. As far
as the Rotax being an alternative - only the earlier Esquals in Europe were
Rotax powered. Since 2003 when Jabiru was introduced as an option the vast
majority of Esquals have been Jabiru powered because performance and
reliability is better.
As far as structural strength - you are wrong again about Lightning. Esqual
probably is not as strong as an RV but Lightning is built stronger than the
Van's product. We can show you photos of Lightning wings loaded to 11 G
positive & negative. I'd like to see the Vans wing loaded to 11G. I have
the feeling there would be some crumpled metal.
The final point of your email is a good one - it needs to come down to pilot
preference. As you say - it's "your money, time, and life". That's why
when an unsigned email comes along with facts that are just wrong or
unsupported opinions disguised as facts - it is good to hear the other side.
That's what the internet is for, right? Anyone can say anything at any time
- right or wrong - and not take responsibility for it.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jackb911
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "jackb911" <jackb911@yahoo.com>
John,
I'm sure that the decision is not easy. I managed to get some time in both
an RV6 and an Esqual. (The Esqual is very similar to the Lightning and was
sold by the Lightning folks, but it looks like they no longer support it.
However, the Esqual continues to be sold and supported in Europe. The
European people are advertising for a new US dealer).
On a cross country platform it is my opinion that the Lightning will not be
as stable or as fast as the RV. But then it won't burn as much fuel either.
Your mpg in the Lightning should be better. Balanced control surfaces on the
RV were great, the Esqual and I suspect the Lightning not as good. Either
plane might be able to be tweaked. You might tweak the Lightning to higher
speeds than normal, but the RV9 can likewise be tweaked higher. Stability
for cross country was better in the RV than the Esqual; I suspect primarily
due to a combination of wing loading and overall increased weight and well
harmonized control input. In IFR, I would rather be in the Vans.
Mile for mile, the Lightning should fly at a lower fuel cost. Engine
maintenance - I haven't talked with enough Jabiru people to feel like I have
a good comparison. It is easy to take the Lycoming O-360 to several places
near home no matter where you live for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't
have the same options. It continues to suffer from heating issues but seems
to be a great little engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru
might be the Rotax 912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe
use the Rotax with favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there
are not as many service options.
The Vans has thousands of RV's flying and years of experience. The Lightning
is new with good potential, but little track record (The Esqual has several
years of favorable track record in Europe and a few in the US).
I would guess that you should be able to get the Lightning in the air faster
with less build time. If you would rather be flying than building then the
Lightning seems to have the advantage. On structural strength my nod goes to
the RV especially if aerobatics are considered. The RV has maybe a 1/4 to
1/3 more baggage area available.
The Esqual is a less complex aircraft for flying, better suited for low time
pilots. The low handling speeds were great! I'm not sure if the Lightning
can get as close to the lower handling speeds, but if so that would be a
nice positive.
The looks of the Lightning are impressive! With the right paint job I think
that it (and the Esqual) are my favorites on curb appeal.
Bottom line? The decision will come down to pilot preference. Both planes
appear to be good planes. One has a long track record, the other is just
starting to build one. Before you decide, you should definitely spend some
time flying in both, research the power plant pros and cons, and consider
what support you might need for your plane down the road and will it be
there. Don't get so caught up in your dreams that you overlook the realities
of how each plane flies today. After you have listened to me and everyone
else, it is your money, time, and life that are on the line.
Just another opinion out of many.
Good luck!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55330#55330
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
Doug...
Slightly off topic but....could you describe in a nutshell why the 914 is considered
troublesome (other than the fact that it is hideously expensive)? Thanks.
Dan
Kayberg@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 8/18/2006 12:33:42 AM Eastern Standard
Time, dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Brian Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
IMile for mile, the Lightning should fly at a lower fuel cost. Engine
maintenance - I haven't talked with enough Jabiru people to feel like I have
a good comparison. It is easy to take the Lycoming O-360 to several places
near home no matter where you live for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't
have the same options. It continues to suffer from heating issues but seems
to be a great little engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru
might be the Rotax 912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe
use the Rotax with favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there
are not as many service options.
Just noting that the 3300 Jabiru horsepower exceeds both the 912 and troublesom
914...for less money than either. Also much easier to install a Jab engine
that a 912. Every 912 install looks like a plumbers nightmare. Also note
that a 912 should be considered a "throw away" engine. Overhauls equal the
price of a new engine.
Maintenance of 1930's engine such as the Continental or Lycoming is not cheap.
Changing spark plugs for $1.77 each on a Jab is very different that $15 or
20 each for the others. And there is the matter of engine weight. It is
like having an extra passenger along on each flight.
I would also note that constructing an RV takes at least 10 times as long as
a Lightning. Just visit some local guy trying to build one as he is constructing
the fuselage. I suspect half of the airframe weight is from rivets.
Doug Koenigsberg
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions |
To Pete or Other knowledgeable listers...
I am a serious potential builder. I will be learning to fly within the next 12
months, after years of waiting for circumstances to allow me to actively pursure
my flying dream. I have always wanted to wait to get flying until I could
own my own aircraft. I have very little interest in any certified aircraft.
However I am pressed for time and shop space (a physician living in a townhouse
in downtown Chicago) with regards to building an experimental. So the Lightning
options of rapidly building at the factory fit me quite well. I have ZERO
interest in the LSA category. I have been looking mostly at the Zodiac XL and
the RV-9A. But the Lightning would be 30 kt faster than the XL with the same
engine. That's hard to ingnore! I have a set of RV-9A preview plans...but
the RV's, as outstanding as they are, are just too ubiquitous at this point to
excite me very much at this point. In this light, the following are intended
to be constructive questions:
1.) As has been mentioned, comparing the Lightning to the RV-9A as a serious travelling
machine DOES involve considerations of cargo capacity. I cannot find
a clear/complete photo on the web site of a finished cargo area on the Lightning.
Does the floor of the baggage area drop significantly below the level of
the tops of the seatbacks?
2.) Is lugguge supposed to sit on top of, or beneath, the shoulder harnesses as
they pass backward to their mounting points?
3.) How do you keep luggage from decapitating you in the case of a rapid-decceleration
such as might occur with an off-field emergent landing? Is there provision
for mounting a strong, easy-to-remove, aesthetically-pleasing barrier/strap/netting
that could be installed (side-to-side or top to bottom) between the
pilot's head and the luggage compartment?
4.) I assume the BRS effectively eliminates at least half of the luggage space?
5.) If Van's tricycle-geared two-seaters (RV-6A, RV-7A, RV-8A, RV-9A) have any
weakness, it is probaby the fragility of the nose-gear setup. Granted the 3300
Jab would weight alot less than an O-320, but the Lightning's nose-gear looks
very similar to the RV's nose-gear. Is it the same?
6.) The Lightning has a nice, slow landing speed. How well would it operate on
grass strips? What size are the wheels?
7.) How is headroom in the Lightning? I am 6'1" with a long torso & long neck.
Would the headroom be confining?
8.) Can the Lightning be painted (without fear of melting in the sun) in red,
orange, or yellow on the TOP half of the fuselage?
9.) Finally, the craziest question: Would hard points be available on the Lightning
to attach floats? One of the things I like about the Zodiac XL is the
ability to convert it to amphibious floats. Chip Erwin of CZAW assures me that
this could be done with the RV-9A as well. I like the looks of a sleek low-wing
aircraft on floats. I have this crazy dream of landing my floatplane on
some body of water and spending the day on a remote beach. Lake Michigan has
plenty of these places. I could see a Lightning on amphibious floats as a sweet-looking
machine. Floats would also add cargo capacity. Putting on a Jab 5100
would probably make a Lightning on floats just pop up on a plane and go....
Thanks for indulging me on these issues...
Dan Vandenberg
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "jackb911" <jackb911@yahoo.com>
Pete,
I feel like you just attacked me personally and openly for the post that I left.
It's great on these forums to have an openess that allows each to give facts,
varying opinions, and experiences. When you get personal with follow up replies,
I think that you have gone too far and it stifles the openess. Please be
more considerate.
I made what I felt were some very positive comments about the Lighting including:
- Lower fuel costs
- Great looks
- Smooth Jabiru
- Faster build time
I don't take back the negatives - those are how I feel. I was honest and clear
in making the negatives comparing with the Esqual. I hope that the Lightning succeeds.
Sometime I hope to get a ride in one.
Bottom line, it is ok to disagree, just don't get personal.
Jack
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55589#55589
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
Ok, We'll see if this works. This is the first time that I've tried to
post a photo on here. Attached is a picture of the BRS system installed in
the prototype before it was complete. You can see that it takes up over
1/3 of the room. If Pete doesn't have it I can try to take some
measurements of Earl's plane without the BRS on Monday and figure out the
baggage compartment dimensions. The baggage area goes nearly to the floor
behind the seats. On my trip out to AZ we each took a duffle and had enough
room to put at least another on the floor.
The other picture is the one of the wing being ground tested to the
equivalent of 11 G's. I believe the flex at the tip was over 1 foot, but it
didn't break! Just a couple of cool pictures. Hope Pete doesn't mind me
reposting some of their own pictures, as I did not take these. This is what
he was referring to though. If this works I'll see if I can post a couple
of Earl's plane on here at some point. Brian W.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
if anyone would like a play by play comparison between the lightning and a RV-6A
i would be mor ethan happy to share, i have flown more than 100 hours in the
lightning type aircraft and many hours in others including a intense flight check
of a local RV-6A...i know how they both fly and can give an opinion of both
with out speculation on how each may or may not perform.....
nick
jackb911 <jackb911@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "jackb911"
Pete,
I feel like you just attacked me personally and openly for the post that I left.
It's great on these forums to have an openess that allows each to give facts,
varying opinions, and experiences. When you get personal with follow up replies,
I think that you have gone too far and it stifles the openess. Please be
more considerate.
I made what I felt were some very positive comments about the Lighting including:
- Lower fuel costs
- Great looks
- Smooth Jabiru
- Faster build time
I don't take back the negatives - those are how I feel. I was honest and clear
in making the negatives comparing with the Esqual. I hope that the Lightning succeeds.
Sometime I hope to get a ride in one.
Bottom line, it is ok to disagree, just don't get personal.
Jack
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55589#55589
---------------------------------
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" <pete@flylightning.net>
Jack, (glad you signed your name this time)
I didn't get personal. I didn't call names or anything like that. I just
responded with fact to several of your anecdotal points that were in error.
We all are entitled to an opinion but we should make it clear that it is our
opinion and take responsibility for it. As you can see I really get torqued
by unsigned emails that mention undefined negatives like "heating issues"
when I know from selling and installing hundreds of engines that the issues
are not engine issues. Usually negatives like that come from third hand
accounts of someone who did not know what he was doing in the first place.
I do disagree with many of your conclusions and that was stated in my
response. If you feel disagreeing with you is a personal attack - well I
think you are wrong there as well.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jackb911
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "jackb911" <jackb911@yahoo.com>
Pete,
I feel like you just attacked me personally and openly for the post that I
left. It's great on these forums to have an openess that allows each to give
facts, varying opinions, and experiences. When you get personal with follow
up replies, I think that you have gone too far and it stifles the openess.
Please be more considerate.
I made what I felt were some very positive comments about the Lighting
including:
- Lower fuel costs
- Great looks
- Smooth Jabiru
- Faster build time
I don't take back the negatives - those are how I feel. I was honest and
clear in making the negatives comparing with the Esqual. I hope that the
Lightning succeeds. Sometime I hope to get a ride in one.
Bottom line, it is ok to disagree, just don't get personal.
Jack
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55589#55589
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
Hey Jack, Buz here.
This list is a great thing for sharing information with others when you
have something informative to share. But my thoughts after reading some of
your message were - he must have flown a really different Esqual than the ones
I have flown and the engines must not have been installed correctly for good
cooling. The heating issue you mention is totally an airframe installation
situation - not an engine issue. So bottom line, I actually thought Pete
went kind of easy with his response. My opinion.
Here are some other statements you made that I thought were misleading
or hard to understand what you were really saying:
-You said: On a cross country platform it is my opinion that the Lightning
will not be as stable or as fast as the RV.
Since I am pretty sure you have not flown a Lightning, how did you form this
opinion? Actually, a stable cross country platform is probably some boring
store bought C or P airframe. Sport aircraft will never be as stable as
those - and generally no one that flys sport aircraft wants them to be. Will
the
Lightning be as fast on XC? That will depend on which Lightning and which
RV-9A. Differences of opinions is what makes horse races. Heck, I have a
friend building an RV-9A (has been doing so for many years) and I can't wait to
blow by him in my Esqual.
-You said: Balanced control surfaces on the RV were great, the Esqual and I
suspect the Lightning not as good.
I am confused by what you mean by balanced control surfaces. The Lightning
has aerodynamic and statically balanced rudder and elevator - the Esqual does
not. Are you maybe talking about control feel, or stick force per "G"
perhaps, or rate of change of aircraft displacement based on some specific control
input verses airspeed? Not sure what you are saying.
-You said: Stability for cross country was better in the RV than the Esqual
See above about sport aircraft and cross country , but my Esqual is a great
cross country airplane. There is some required trim adjustment as you burn
fuel, but you can easily trim it hands off. As long as you are above the
bumpy air down low, it is as smooth a ride as my Bonanza was.
-You mentioned the term: well harmonized control input.
Once again I am confused. I completely understand "harmonized controls"
referring to control feel, but if we are talking "input" than that must be
something that comes from the pilot. If the pilot does not have at least good
hands (mine are golden) then the input may not be well harmonized. Yes, I'm
joshing with you here.
In closing, I hope you can understand why Pete was so concerned. There
is just too much of the "old wives tales" type of information and "hangar
talk" based on hearsay in aviation. We need to keep the information flow going,
but it must be based on facts and not hearsay.
Well, I'm ready to jink-out if you are tracking and I am in your pipper,
so take any shots. Seriously, the fact that you took the time to send your
message shows that you care and some of your information was good. I would
just caution you about opinions without facts.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|