Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:13 AM - Lightning Pilot Report Repost (Brian Whittingham)
2. 12:13 AM - 5/8 bolts (Tex Mantell)
3. 12:23 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Pete)
4. 12:25 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Brian Whittingham)
5. 03:38 AM - Re: 5/8 bolts (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
6. 11:49 AM - Re: 5/8 bolts (nick otterback)
7. 08:03 PM - Re: Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
8. 11:01 PM - Re: Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions (Daniel Vandenberg)
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: | Lightning Pilot Report Repost |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Brian Whittingham" <dashvii@hotmail.com>
Ok, I'll bite. I've got several hours in the Lightning now. Hopefully this
won't bore all of you and I'll try not to be too technical. Let me start
with a little history on the Lightning. The Lightning was developed around
the same idea as the Esqual, a light, fast, fun, and affordable sport plane.
The Vol Medici company that marketed the Esqual sold off the company and
(so far) stop producing the Esqual kits. Jabiru USA was the US importer for
Esqual. This aircraft complemented the Jabiru line of aircraft as well as
providing for a low wing alternative to the high wing Jabirus.
The wing of the Lightning was designed much like the pressure recovery
wheelpants. The wheelpants are from the RV series of aircraft and modified
to suit our own needs. RV borrowed the design from Cessna. The idea is
that there was a better way to fair the landing gear that would result in
less drag. At the point where the airflow starts to detach from the surface
of the gear, the shape would create a suction that would reattach the
boundry layer. The wing was designed as a kind of teardrop shape with
concave trailing edge shape. It is a high laminar flow wing.
Now the wing that is on the Lightning is kind of a reverse engineered wing
that was originally on the Esqual wing. For various reasons that airfoil
was traded for a different one and the molds were destroyed. The new Esqual
wing is more of a Clark Y "Hershey Bar" type. That wing will allow for a
shorter takeoff run, but at the same time will float forever if you come in
hot and get in ground effect. In Europe, operating out of grass strips the
lower takeoff run and slower liftoff speeds were more desirable on a sport
plane than all out speed. The Lightning wing is whole different beast. The
speeds are higher on the plane for takeoff and landing. The flaps work much
better than the Esqual in that they provide the needed drag where the Esqual
is mostly lift and a means of not accelerating when pointing the nose down,
kind of more like a speed brake. As with any glass plane it will accelerate
rapidly when the nose is pointed down in a clean configuration. On one
particular flight test in an Esqual I tested for aileron flutter after
finding and tightning a loose aileron. With the power to idle in almost a
vertical down line the Esqual will quit accelerating and hold about 185-195
mph indicated. The Lightning will eagerly pass through 200 and rapidly
accelerate past Vne.
There were two "hybrids" and one prototype aircraft. The first hybrid,
which we refer to as the "Frankensqual" is an Esqual fuselage with the
prototype set of Lightning wings. It has an old 80hp Jabiru 2200 engine and
will do 160mph flat out! The airplane is about twice as pitch sensitive as
the Lightning with much lighter feeling on the controls. It has a far aft
CG because of the light weight of the engine and had each wing that was
60lbs. heavier. Very impressive performance and after about 15 minutes of
flying it you get used to the sensitivity. The next was Buzz's plane which
tested the wheelpants, gear leg fairings, and the cowling for the lightning.
Buzz built the fastest Esqual in the world, by about 40-50mph! In fact,
his plane is similar in performance to the Lightning. In an all out speed
comparison at 5,000 feet the prototype Lightning pulled away from Buzzes
plane by about 1-2 knots. The pitch of the prop wasn't set to the optimal
level on the prototype at the time in its defense. Some of the speed can
certainly be attributed to Buzzes craftmanship and attention to detail. For
those of you who have seen it you know what I mean. Getting everything
faired over and making sure that you have a tight fit and smooth finish
amounts to drag reduction, and superb looks. Buzz also got custom leather
interior and foam fitted seats put in. I encourage any of you builders to
do something similar. The cloth seats are comfortable, but those
leather/foam seats just really feel nice and make for a comfortable ride.
The prototype, as did Greg Hobbs' plane had a thicker tail section which was
the result of a miscommunication. The fiberglass layups were extremely
thick in the tail which resulted in a much heavier fuselage with an aft CG.
While this is great for speed, it is horrible for loading arrangements and
total useful load. All of the newer planes have a lighter fuselage which
should mean better takeoff performance and acceleration. The prototype also
had an early horizontal stabilizer that was (I think) 6lbs heavier per side.
It has since been replaced with a production tail. Nick is continually
finding little ways to improve performance, looks, functionality, etc. This
is as much his baby as anybody's and he continually tweaks things. The
prototype eventually got to a little over 200mph TAS in level flight. That
was at greater than 3300 rpm though.
Now on to the Pilot Report:
First off, approaching the airplane you notice that it is a very nice
looking plane. The complex curves of the composite aircraft look very
similar to that of a Lancair or Cirrus. The plane is smaller than either
and looks fast just sitting there. A walk around is similar to any other
light airplane with attention to the composites. I like to get down to eye
level with the surface and look for any chips or cracks that may indicate
delamination. So far I've never found any, which is the way it should be
for a newly built plane, but it is a different type of a thing than you look
for in a metal airplane. I pay careful attention to the tail area and
stabilizers. The wings are extremely strong and both main wing spars cross
through the fuselage, under the seat. The rear of the wing attaches to the
fuselage without a carry through structure.
Getting in the airplane is accomplished by climbing up on the wing, being
careful to avoid stepping on the flaps. The sides of the plane are fairly
low and you can easily throw a leg over into the cockpit. At this point you
want to step into the seat and then your other leg goes over and into the
floorboard. Once seated you find that there is adequate room for two adults
to fit comfortably, even for long trips. The center console does get in the
way, keeping you from moving the stick to the stops because it hits your
knees. Future planes will have a console that terminates at the edge of the
seat. This should fix the problem. Sitting in the plane the seats are
reclined a bit. I find that on a long trip this made me want to raise my
head forward and that was uncomfortable after a while. If the plane is
going to be used for some long trips I would suggest fasioning some type of
head rests. This of course would limit the useful load some though. The
visibility is incredible with that bubble canopy. The canopy itself is much
clearer and free of distortion when compared to the Esqual. Another thing
is that the Lightning has a longer nose and gives a difference perspective
than flying in an Esqual.
With two on board and 10 degrees of flaps the plane will Flying Greg's
airplane I found that the airplane was very responsive. The airplane will
rotate the nosewheel to a degree or so at about 50 mph and will hop into the
air at a little less than 60mph. Once airborne a speed of 80mph will give
you greater than 1000 feet per mintue climb. The airplane is nimble, about
90 degrees of rolls per second. It has a really nice feel to it. The
pushrods give a direct feedback from the plane and have a firm, but not
heavy feel. This gives the plane a sporty feel, but not a twitchy overly
sensitive feel. In a climb with high RPM and low speeds the plane requires
some good rudder input. Again the controls are firm, but not heavy. Greg's
airplane had a trim control issue at first which caused us to run out of
trim and the nose would still fall at certain speeds. The plane can be
flown in all operating configurations without trim, but it is more
comfortable and easy to fly with the use of trim. The plane can be flown
hands off when in unaccelerated steady-state flight in trimmed
configuration. Again, on a long trip a dual axis autopilot would be nice to
have, especially when coupled with the Grand Rapids EFIS. That would even
do virtual approaches on autopilot.
Landing speeds seemed to fall right in place if you can enter the pattern at
no more than 110mph and slow to around 100 on downwind. The plane flies a
nice at the 65mph final approach speed. The plane seems to have good rudder
control and excellent aileron control authority in these lower speed ranges
as well. Landing is more challenging in some ways than the Esqual. The
Lightning doesn't really float. It is similar to a high performance Mooney
in that the laminar flow wing flies to a point and then it stops. The trick
is to round out the flare with a slight nose high attitude just as you reach
the stall speed of between 45-55mph depending on configuration. I liked
using 20 degrees of flaps instead of 30 degrees. For me it seemed to give a
flatter and better feel on the approach. 30 degrees of flaps led to a good
decent angle and although the plane will land just as smooth, I felt that
this wing wanted to fly onto the runway.
Flying Greg's plane out to the Tucson area we covered around 500 miles in a
little over 2.7 hours. We burned approximately 6.0 gph at 2950 RPM
(slightly high side of cruise RPM) Greg admitted that the jets weren't
quiet tweaked as well as they could be and that a slightly lower fuel burn
would be in the near future for his plane. We also didn't have the plane
all fastened up and as sleek as it could be. The plane still had a slight
right roll which resulted in about an inch of each aileron being deflected
and causing undue drag. Greg had planned on fairing over some small parts
around the wheelpants and gear leg intersections. We had hotter than normal
CHT's due to an 'experiment' with adding a ramp to one side of the cylinder
heads at the entrance. This proved to actually make the majority of the air
go over the cylinders at any angle of attack and out the outflow. I
understand that with the ramp removed the CHT's are more uniform now. With
these little improvements that Greg has done I imagine he'll pick up another
10 knots or so at least.
There had been the thought of testing some gap seals on the prototype to get
some additional speed for free type of an improvement. I had also suggested
a winglet design for cruise performance, looks, and the added stability for
long cruise flights. If correctly designed they would slightly increase
speed, increase range and climb rates, decrease takeoff roll, but I believe
the looks are worth as much if not more than the performance gains.
If any of you know Greg or if he is part of the list, tell him that I'd be
happy to make the journey out west to fly any of the customer planes on some
of the first flights. They all are a little bit different and all have
their own special needs as far as setting them up. Once you get things
right though you get a "Lightning" fast airplane that is comfortable and
stable. Hope you all enjoyed the read and any little improvements to the
plane that you want to suggest I'll be sure to relay to Nick.
Brian Whittingham
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 |
|
I have 3 5/8 bolts. 2 are 5" long, one is 6" long. I believe the two
5" one's hold the wings to the central beam. Where does the 6" bolt go?
Anyone? Tex
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 |
--> 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 putting out
an opinion not based on any fact.
The Lightning cruises 5 knots slower than the 160 hp RV 6 that we flew. On
a three hour flight that would equate to 5 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 5 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.
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 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: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> 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.
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.
John,
I have not flown an RV-6, although I plan to get some time in one before
too long. I have flown both the Lightning and Esqual though. It is my
underdstanding that the Esqual company has sold out and possibly reforming
another company to market the Esqual. Right now in Shelbyville there are
two Esquals which are being built. These will be the last two built here
unless they start making new kits again. Although I have not flown the RV6,
Nick that test flew the first Lightning has flown both. So I do have some
basis for comparison here. Nick relayed that the RV-6 was less stable in
roll than the Lightning. The pitch is fairly comparable. Fuel burn at 75%
cruise is about 5.5 gph on the Lightning. This is a 120hp engine that will
give you a cruise of 185mph which is almost identical to a 150hp RV. So I
would have to say that the Lightning would be better for cross-country
flying. The only way that I would deviate from that is if you needed a lot
of cargo room. You're probably not going to get a couple of suit cases in
there, but then again you won't get a whole lot in the RV either. If we
ever made the Lightning with the 180hp 8 cylinder Jabiru it would be faster
than any of the RV series of aircraft.
On a 1500 mile + trip from TN to Arizona the ride was smoother than an
Esqual and the only turbulence was where you'd expect it and it wasn't more
than minor chop. The Lightning does have slightly reclined seating and I
think that for long trips, fashioning some sort of headrest would be more
comfortable as I kept wanting to bend my neck forward so that my head was up
straight. We covered the last 500 miles in 2 hours 45 minutes which
averages out to about 181mph. The control feel for the Lightning is totally
different than the Esqual is. The controls are counterweighted and the
inputs have more of a solid and fluid feel to them. In IFR conditions the
Lightning does not have static wicks and therefore could be a no-go if
flying around thunderstorms.
Jack was right that finding a person to work on the Jabiru engine might be a
little harder to find. There is an engine seminar program here in
Shelbyville that can be taken. Then there are kits that can be sent out for
overhaul or you can bring it in for overhaul. The Jabiru requires little
maintenance other than the normal oil change. It is much cheaper to
overhaul than either a Lycoming or Continental.
We have had several people "convert" to at least looking at the Lightning
over the RV series simply due to the short build times. I would look
carefully at the structural strength. The Lightning is not considered an
aerobatic aircraft, so if that is a consideration then you might want to
look at the RV. On the other hand the Lightning wing had an Ultimate Load
Factor that will surpass over 95% of aircraft that are built today. The
Lightning comes in just slightly faster than a standard Esqual, but less
than 10mph faster if I remember correctly. I come in at 70mph in the
Lightning and rotate around 60. So that is a pretty slow speed. The
Lightning, however does fly much differently than the Esqual. You aim for a
landing point and if you are on speed then you land where you want. The
Esqual would float forever. The Lightning does not. I would rate the
Lightning as harder to fly than the Esqual, but not difficult. It isn't any
harder to fly than an RV6. I would not put a low time pilot in one without
getting some transition training.
One last thought. The RV is metal, and the Lightning is composite. You
don't get the curves with the metal. It is a different kind of construction
as well. If you want to fly fast in a short amount of time and have great
looks and superb handling I'd go with the lightning. If you want a little
longer to get in the air and fly a few knots faster with up to twice the
fuel burn and still good handling, I'd go with the RV.
Just my observations, Brian W.
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 |
|
In a message dated 8/22/2006 3:14:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wb2ssj@earthlink.net writes:
I have 3 5/8 bolts. 2 are 5" long, one is 6" long. I believe the two 5"
one's hold the wings to the central beam. Where does the 6" bolt go?
Anyone? Tex
Nose gear axel?
doug
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 |
|
th 6 inch is the nose axle
nick
Kayberg@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/22/2006 3:14:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, wb2ssj@earthlink.net
writes:
I have 3 5/8 bolts. 2 are 5" long, one is 6" long. I believe the two 5"
one's hold the wings to the central beam. Where does the 6" bolt go? Anyone?
Tex
Nose gear axel?
doug
---------------------------------
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: Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions |
Dan,
As a follow up on your Lightning baggage space area, it looks like you
could install the floor about 15 inches below the seat back. The baggage area
average width is about 40 inches, and the length is about 24 inches. Rough
estimate is a baggage space of 8.35 cubic feet without loading things about
the back of the seats. There would be no problem with light and soft things
being above the back of the seat backs. Hope this helps.
Blue Skies,
Buz
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: Lightning Cargo Capacity Questions |
Buz...
Your response to my series of questions is greatly appreciated. The Lightning
is most impressive. With the uncertainty of fuel prices in the coming years I
am particularly enamored by the thought of possibly achieving 30 mpg in an aircraft
that is actually a serious travelling machine (in addition to being fun).
I will be watching the Lightning closely in the coming several months.
By the way, there was an F-4 at Gary, IN (GYY) this past weekend...I think for
the Chicago Air & Water Show. I had thought these were all in mothballs.
Dan
N1BZRich@aol.com wrote: Dan,
As a follow up on your Lightning baggage space area, it looks like you could
install the floor about 15 inches below the seat back. The baggage area
average width is about 40 inches, and the length is about 24 inches. Rough estimate
is a baggage space of 8.35 cubic feet without loading things about the
back of the seats. There would be no problem with light and soft things being
above the back of the seat backs. Hope this helps.
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! --
|