Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:45 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Scotty)
2. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Brian Whittingham)
3. 06:01 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Scotty)
4. 06:14 AM - Test (George SMith)
5. 06:27 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Dave)
6. 06:47 AM - Qualith of build and durability? (George SMith)
7. 07:47 AM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Brian Whittingham)
8. 08:02 AM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
9. 08:03 AM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
10. 08:47 AM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (nick otterback)
11. 09:45 AM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Johnny Thompson)
12. 11:50 AM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (georgiemun)
13. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
14. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Jim Langley)
15. 01:44 PM - Re: Quality of build and durability? (Jim Langley)
16. 01:44 PM - Re: Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Brian Whittingham)
17. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Brian Whittingham)
18. 01:59 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (georgiemun)
19. 02:00 PM - Re: Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Jim Langley)
20. 03:27 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (nick otterback)
21. 03:45 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Brian Whittingham)
22. 04:28 PM - few more (Brian Whittingham)
23. 05:56 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (georgiemun)
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: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
Buz and Laurie, et al,
The Diamond DA40 has the same style canopy as the Lightning. There is an additional
locking hole for the canopy latching pin to go into. It is located about
1 inch above the "closed and locked" hole. You raise the canopy, and latch
it in this slightly opened position when on the ground and it provides a great
ventilation on the ground when the engine is running.
The DA-40 also has a little vent window on the side. It is worthless in flight
and on the ground unless you stick your hand out and "scoop" some air into the
cockpit.
I am not recommending this additional hole except as a possibility, because I have
not looked at the fuselage strength where the canopy latch hole is located.
It is a great feature on the DA-40. Check it out the next time you see a DA-40.
Another feature they have is a painted "ceiling" on the roof of the canopy to block
some of the sun. However, the sun and the painted "ceiling" are in cahoots.
They move just enough for the sun to beat on your head or get into your eyes
on EVERY flight.
[Laughing]
--------
Scotty
He who doesn't read the news is UN-informed.
He who reads the news is IL-informed.
Mark Twain
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92543#92543
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: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
Scotty,
The two-hole canopy latching part is also on the Lightning prototype.
Not sure if anybody else uses it or not. Also Buz utilized something that
looks like a painted cieling, but it's the stick on type of sun visor stuff
so it is just a darkened area above the cockpit. When I flew the Ligthning
out to Arizona I had some stick on sun visors and they worked really well
and I could move them around as the sun moved around. Brian W.
From: "Scotty" <mr.scotty@earthlink.net>
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
Buz and Laurie, et al,
The Diamond DA40 has the same style canopy as the Lightning. There is an
additional locking hole for the canopy latching pin to go into. It is
located about 1 inch above the "closed and locked" hole. You raise the
canopy, and latch it in this slightly opened position when on the ground and
it provides a great ventilation on the ground when the engine is running.
The DA-40 also has a little vent window on the side. It is worthless in
flight and on the ground unless you stick your hand out and "scoop" some air
into the cockpit.
I am not recommending this additional hole except as a possibility, because
I have not looked at the fuselage strength where the canopy latch hole is
located. It is a great feature on the DA-40. Check it out the next time
you see a DA-40.
Another feature they have is a painted "ceiling" on the roof of the canopy
to block some of the sun. However, the sun and the painted "ceiling" are in
cahoots. They move just enough for the sun to beat on your head or get into
your eyes on EVERY flight.
[Laughing]
--------
Scotty
He who doesn't read the news is UN-informed.
He who reads the news is IL-informed.
Mark Twain
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92543#92543
_________________________________________________________________
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
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: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
Brian,
Yes, I get them at Walmart (in the FAA approved section, of course) and keep them
in my flight bag. When they quit sticking to the window, I wash them with
a mild detergent and they magically start sticking again.
Scotty
Technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.
--------
Scotty
He who doesn't read the news is UN-informed.
He who reads the news is IL-informed.
Mark Twain
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92558#92558
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 |
|
New member testing to see if the post works...=0A=0AGeorgie=0A=0A=0A =0A___
___________________________________________________________________________
______=0AFood fight? Enjoy some healthy debate =0Ain the Yahoo! Answers Foo
d & Drink Q&A.=0Ahttp://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
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: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
Laurie
I have an Esqual which I have installed a Kroger sunshade. It slides back
on a track that is double faced taped to inside of canopy. It keeps cockpit
cooler on sunny days and on cloudy days you simply slide it back. It never
gets in the way and it looks cool. Got mine through Vans Aircraft.
Rosen makes a sunshade that I also use, You simply apply it with suction
cubs. Blocks sun very well.
Dave McC.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Hoffman" <lozhoffman@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
> <lozhoffman@yahoo.com>
>
> Buz,
> About 5" diameter. Pleased to hear that the Lightning
> canopy can be cracked open on the ground. Sure does
> get hot in this country at times.
> Laurie
>
> --- N1BZRich@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> In a message dated 2/2/2007 7:16:16 P.M. Eastern
>> Standard Time,
>> lozhoffman@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>> How effect is the Lightning cockpit ventilation
>> without canopy side scoops?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Laurie,
>> The Lightning has great cockpit ventilation.
>> Each side of the fuselage,
>> just aft of the firewall, has a NACA ducts that
>> provide air to the cockpit.
>> In the cockpit are adjustable outlets that lets you
>> open and close off the
>> air flow. There are no canopy side scoops.
>> However there is an option to add
>> a small sliding canopy opening similar to what I
>> have seen on gliders. I
>> have one of these on my Esqual canopy. On the
>> ground you can taxi with the
>> Lightning canopy slightly open for fresh air.
>> As far as a mod to let air flow through the
>> cockpit, I have found some
>> round 3" aluminum vents that I plan to use. I will
>> put one on each side of
>> the aft baggage bulkhead near the top. How large
>> was that outlet vent you used?
>> Buz
>>
>>
>
>
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
>
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: | Qualith of build and durability? |
I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been surfing
around the forums for information on the aircraft. Since it is so new, it
is difficult to find many people who have experience with it. My concern
is that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a ho
bby is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the
line.=0A =0AIn reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guy
s asking questions about the Lightning and one gentleman=92s thoughts on th
e aircraft after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.=0A=0AAn interesting
new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show quite a bit at t
heir web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory observations. Fir
st, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235 or 320. There a
re minor differences and it does look to be using a different wing section
(although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar enough to
at least raise an eyebrow.=0A=0AThey show quite a few pictures of the part
s and the various sub assemblies so you can get at least an idea of what's
involved in putting this together. It looks to be a fairly standard structu
re although one or two areas would need a bit of a closer examination in or
der to see the details.=0A=0ABut looking through all the presentation mater
ials all I could think of is: Sloppy. If these pictures are truly represent
ative of their parts and their work I'd probably recommend a deeper investi
gation before committing. The first picture I randomly selected was that of
the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance shows that the molded part came
out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched
up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage,
that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to be poorly shaped (look a
t the light reflections) with surface discontinuities that make it look lik
e the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading and mayb
e it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite f
rankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor tooling
or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.=0A=0AAnother area that mi
ght cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the strength, but more s
o the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a combination of graphite a
nd glass. While feasible, generally this type of structure is not recommend
ed unless one really understands how the materials behave together. The sig
nificant difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes e
ach component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going
to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in the
design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.=0A=0A
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphit
e ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it
is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a
good presentation and certainly not something that most companies would wa
nt to use as a demonstration of their skills.=0A=0ARegarding their performa
nce numbers, they look to be something that they took from some analysis pr
ogram without really verifying what they were presenting - I'd prefer to se
e something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too would be a
bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean airplane and
some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd ques
tion that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.=0A
=0AIn short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hir
e someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineer
ing issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.=0A=0AThis
kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so I
did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear simi
lar opinions. I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is constr
ucted in this manner? Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the
wing and not out to the end of the spar. Is there a design consideration
in this? The points about the finish are not really that big a concern to
me. While true that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynami
c, or Pulsar, I believe this because their products are delivered in a more
complete state, (those companies having the opportunity to do more finishi
ng on their end), I don't mind a little body work now and then.=0A=0AAlso,
from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a redesign of
the Esqual? Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar composition as t
he Lightning. If so, this would lend some validation to the fact that ther
e must be several of those flying and no real problems to speak of?=0A=0APl
ease understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or design
, so do not take offense. I am just searching for some answers to question
s that have been raised about the design and finish before I make the decis
ion to put down my money.=0A=0AThanks for any help that you can provide.=0A
=0AGeorgie=0A=0A=0A =0A____________________________________________________
________________________________=0A8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no tim
e =0Awith the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.=0Ahttp://tools.search.
yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
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: | Qualith of build and durability? |
George,
Let me answer a couple of questions. I'm not an employee but have flown
the Lightnings, and the Esquals and then several other experimental and/or
light sport. The Lightning IS NOT a redesign of the Esqual. It was
designed to fill the gap when the Esqual stopped production. The mission is
the same and so the looks are similar, but definately not identical. The
wing is a different airfoil shape. It is constructed in a similar manner
though. The plane was also static tested to around 10G's if memory serves
without failing. I don't know who wrote this review, and I don't know what
pics are used to reference, but I'd say that they're talking about the
prototype which was different in many ways from the production models. The
prototype is a lot rougher of a plane and doesn't have a clearcoat finish on
it b/c we're going to be beating it to death doing research. As for the
allegations that this gentleman made it has been flight tested extensively,
and then indipendently verified from somebody who doesn't work for the
company. The guy was more right when he said it looked like the early
Lancair. That would probably be b/c some of the same people that helped
design those early Lancairs helped with the Lightning project. So his
insinuations that the design was "stolen" are totally unfounded. Instead
the design was made from the minds of people who had been there and tried
that and so again it looks similar to their other works, but also has some
built in refinements. The structure is more solid than most all of your
normally certified aircraft. The glide ratio I haven't independently
confirmed, but if you look at other light sport aircraft you'll see this
kind of glide ratio or more.
My thoughts is that this guy didn't understand composites either, didn't
know what he was looking at or anything about the product and still voiced
his opinions instead of checking it out himself. So, I'll invite you to
stick around and check it out for yourself and see the pics and even come
out and see how it's done! For the structure though I'll tell you this, I'm
young, only been married a couple of years, thinking about starting a
family, and I wouldn't fly a plane that I thought wouldn't be safe. Brian
W.
From: George SMith <georgiemun@yahoo.com>
Subject: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been surfing
around the forums for information on the aircraft. Since it is so new, it
is difficult to find many people who have experience with it. My concern is
that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby
is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the
line.
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking
questions about the Lightning and one gentlemans thoughts on the aircraft
after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show
quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory
observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235
or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different
wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems
similar enough to at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies
so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together.
It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would
need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is:
Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their
work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The
first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a
cursory glance shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface
wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool.
Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The
surface seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with
surface discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It
is possible that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with
the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of
anything that would cause this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality
control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the
strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a
combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of
structure is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials
behave together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass
and the graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently, with
more of the load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is
not understood in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual
structural problems.
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the
graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid
up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not
really a good presentation and certainly not something that most companies
would want to use as a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they
took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were
presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and
flight proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims,
although it is a clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far
off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even without the prop it
sounds way too good to be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire
someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering
issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.
This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so
I did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear
similar opinions. I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is
constructed in this manner? Why is carbon fiber just through the interior
of the wing and not out to the end of the spar. Is there a design
consideration in this? The points about the finish are not really that big
a concern to me. While true that the finish is not the same as that of say
a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe this because their products are
delivered in a more complete state, (those companies having the opportunity
to do more finishing on their end), I don't mind a little body work now and
then.
Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a
redesign of the Esqual? Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar
composition as the Lightning. If so, this would lend some validation to the
fact that there must be several of those flying and no real problems to
speak of?
Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or
design, so do not take offense. I am just searching for some answers to
questions that have been raised about the design and finish before I make
the decision to put down my money.
Thanks for any help that you can provide.
Georgie
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Georgie,
When I read a quote like you have attached and I copied below, I like to as
k
these questions:
1) Does the writer of the piece make any material misrepresentations? For
example, he thinks the spar is a mixture of grapite and glass. (it isnt)
Then he thinks the molded material is "bunched up". That assumption is
completely wrong. Other than an occasional problem area with a tiny bit of
"orange peel", the molded quality is exceptional. There are others, like
the
assumption that it is a copy of a Lancair because it looks like one! That
is
the equivalent of suggesting a Airbus is a copy of a Boeing!
2) Do the assertions with conclusions pass the pragmatic test? I would
suggest his conclusions based on a "sloppy" website should actually be the
reverse. There are some very fine websites out there for aircraft that may
not
even exist. Some of you may recall the CAG Toxo "prototype" that debued a
year ago at OshKosh. They had a fabuous brochure. (turned out the entire e
ffort
was funded by the Spanish Government) The website, _www.toxoaero.com_
(http://www.toxoaero.com) is still up and does look much better than the L
ighning
website..but it hasnt changed since 2005!!. by the way, they have yet to
fly one in the United States after more than FIVE years of promise!!! Whe
n I
tried to sit in the Toxo at Osh Kosh 2005, the top 4 inches of my head stu
ck
out ABOVE the gull-doors of the canopy!!! The Lighting site is actually a
clue about its voracity. It has: 1)changes in progress based on flying and
experimenting advances, 2) website done by people flying and building
airplanes most days, not sitting behind a computer screen most days, 3)the
"news"
section actually contains NEWS not Press Releases!!!
3) The writer asserts that the performance numbers are proposed, not
measured. From the postings on this listserve, it should be obvious that
there
are a number of them flying now and the listed numbers are not in dispute.
4) I think the wise writer would not be willing to draw the conclusions
suggested without more data. That makes the assertions opinions not facts
. We
all have opinions but not all of us have earned the right to be heard.
When I look at the writer's comments based on the above, I would be happy
to discount not just part of what he suggests, but ALL OF IT!!!
My suggestion is this: Go fly one. Look at a kit. Read the comments on
this listserve by people who really do know airplanes and are NOT PAID by t
he
factory. (Like Buz) If it fits your mission profile, then go for it!!!
None of us are getting any younger, so the speed of assembling the Lighning
has tremendous appeal. It is one of the few airplanes that the wait to rec
eive
a kit will be longer than it takes to build one!!
Doug Koenigsberg
In a message dated 2/3/2007 9:49:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
georgiemun@yahoo.com writes:
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking
questions about the Lightning and one gentleman=99s thoughts on the a
ircraft after
visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show
quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory
observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235
or
320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different w
ing
section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar
enough to at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies
so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together
.
It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would
need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is:
Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their
work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The
first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a c
ursory
glance shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface wrinkle
s
- almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also,
looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surf
ace
seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface
discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is poss
ible
that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep
or
the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cau
se
this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the
strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a
combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of s
tructure
is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave
together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the
graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of
the
load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not unders
tood
in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphit
e
ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is
very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a go
od
presentation and certainly not something that most companies would want to
use as a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they
took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were
presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and fli
ght
proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although i
t is a
clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide
ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too
good to
be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire
someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineerin
g
issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Georgie,
When I read a quote like you have attached and I copied below, I like to as
k
these questions:
1) Does the writer of the piece make any material misrepresentations? For
example, he thinks the spar is a mixture of grapite and glass. (it isnt)
Then he thinks the molded material is "bunched up". That assumption is
completely wrong. Other than an occasional problem area with a tiny bit of
"orange peel", the molded quality is exceptional. There are others, like
the
assumption that it is a copy of a Lancair because it looks like one! That
is
the equivalent of suggesting a Airbus is a copy of a Boeing!
2) Do the assertions with conclusions pass the pragmatic test? I would
suggest his conclusions based on a "sloppy" website should actually be the
reverse. There are some very fine websites out there for aircraft that may
not
even exist. Some of you may recall the CAG Toxo "prototype" that debued a
year ago at OshKosh. They had a fabuous brochure. (turned out the entire e
ffort
was funded by the Spanish Government) The website, _www.toxoaero.com_
(http://www.toxoaero.com) is still up and does look much better than the L
ighning
website..but it hasnt changed since 2005!!. by the way, they have yet to
fly one in the United States after more than FIVE years of promise!!! Whe
n I
tried to sit in the Toxo at Osh Kosh 2005, the top 4 inches of my head stu
ck
out ABOVE the gull-doors of the canopy!!! The Lighting site is actually a
clue about its voracity. It has: 1)changes in progress based on flying and
experimenting advances, 2) website done by people flying and building
airplanes most days, not sitting behind a computer screen most days, 3)the
"news"
section actually contains NEWS not Press Releases!!!
3) The writer asserts that the performance numbers are proposed, not
measured. From the postings on this listserve, it should be obvious that
there
are a number of them flying now and the listed numbers are not in dispute.
4) I think the wise writer would not be willing to draw the conclusions
suggested without more data. That makes the assertions opinions not facts
. We
all have opinions but not all of us have earned the right to be heard.
When I look at the writer's comments based on the above, I would be happy
to discount not just part of what he suggests, but ALL OF IT!!!
My suggestion is this: Go fly one. Look at a kit. Read the comments on
this listserve by people who really do know airplanes and are NOT PAID by t
he
factory. (Like Buz) If it fits your mission profile, then go for it!!!
None of us are getting any younger, so the speed of assembling the Lighning
has tremendous appeal. It is one of the few airplanes that the wait to rec
eive
a kit will be longer than it takes to build one!!
Doug Koenigsberg
In a message dated 2/3/2007 9:49:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
georgiemun@yahoo.com writes:
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking
questions about the Lightning and one gentleman=99s thoughts on the a
ircraft after
visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show
quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory
observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235
or
320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different w
ing
section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar
enough to at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies
so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together
.
It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would
need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is:
Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their
work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The
first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a c
ursory
glance shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface wrinkle
s
- almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also,
looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surf
ace
seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface
discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is poss
ible
that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep
or
the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cau
se
this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the
strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a
combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of s
tructure
is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave
together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the
graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of
the
load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not unders
tood
in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphit
e
ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is
very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a go
od
presentation and certainly not something that most companies would want to
use as a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they
took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were
presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and fli
ght
proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although i
t is a
clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide
ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too
good to
be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire
someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineerin
g
issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.
Message 10
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
George Smith...
I will let others who are simply customers, who have flown and built there lightnings
, respond to this e-mail first. I think it is only fair that you get
some unbiased opinions from those who have actually delt with the product and
have not simply seen a few photos on a web page. Further more i would be very
curios to know were this post was written as i might respond with a bit of correct
information as to set this individual straight. Because i have put so much
into this project i can not watch it be described in this manner by one so
uninformed...
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft LLC...
George SMith <georgiemun@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been
surfing around the forums for information on the aircraft. Since it is so new,
it is difficult to find many people who have experience with it. My concern
is that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby
is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the line.
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking questions
about the Lightning and one gentlemans thoughts on the aircraft after visiting
the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show quite
a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory observations.
First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235 or 320.
There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different wing section
(although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar enough to
at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies so you
can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together. It looks
to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would need a bit
of a closer examination in order to see the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is: Sloppy.
If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their work
I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The first picture
I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance
shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost
as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at
the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to
be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities
that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading
and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat,
but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor
tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the strength,
but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a combination
of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of structure is not
recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave together.
The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes
each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going
to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in the design
of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphite ends
petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is very
sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a good presentation
and certainly not something that most companies would want to use as
a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they took from
some analysis program without really verifying what they were presenting -
I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too
would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean airplane
and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea,
I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire someone
in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering issues
and have him or her go through their factory with you.
This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so I
did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear similar
opinions. I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is constructed
in this manner? Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the wing and
not out to the end of the spar. Is there a design consideration in this? The
points about the finish are not really that big a concern to me. While true
that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe
this because their products are delivered in a more complete state, (those
companies having the opportunity to do more finishing on their end), I don't
mind a little body work now and then.
Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a redesign
of the Esqual? Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar composition as
the Lightning. If so, this would lend some validation to the fact that there
must be several of those flying and no real problems to speak of?
Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or design,
so do not take offense. I am just searching for some answers to questions that
have been raised about the design and finish before I make the decision to
put down my money.
Thanks for any help that you can provide.
Georgie
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question
on Yahoo! Answers.
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
Message 11
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Hi George
Just a note from a lighting kit builder at present, also a velocity
XL-5, Preceptor pup (2), and have rebuilt many types of certified
aircraft. I am an A&P. I served 26 years in the civil service and
military as a test pilot in R&D and maintenance holding positions as
director of aviation maintenance with over 300 employees, flight
instructor and examiner, aircraft accident investigator and aviation
safety office. I hold degrees in Aviation management and Aerospace
engineering.
I looked at the lighting in Oct 2006. Arion employees and Greg Hobbs,
the dealer, were completely open to all my questions and talked about
development problems and solutions they found. I like the way they jump
on problems and come up with improvements continually. It is very costly
to constantly change the production requirements but they do it. I have
only found one part that was manufacture poorly (subcontractor) and they
not only replaced it but found a way to improve on it making future
maintenance much easier. I like that! Yes I have seen some questionable
quality but that was on the prototype 1.5 and to my amazement they
pointed it out to me without my seeing it first, then they showed me how
they had improved the aircraft. The quality of my aircraft, based on 37
years in aviation I will say this, "this build is a piece of cake and
the aircraft will finish beautifully." I just need to do my 51% or go
buy another "certified aircraft". Just my thoughts. Have fun
Johnny Thompson "Only work for myself"
----- Original Message -----
From: nick otterback
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
George Smith...
I will let others who are simply customers, who have flown and built
there lightnings , respond to this e-mail first. I think it is only
fair that you get some unbiased opinions from those who have actually
delt with the product and have not simply seen a few photos on a web
page. Further more i would be very curios to know were this post was
written as i might respond with a bit of correct information as to set
this individual straight. Because i have put so much into this project i
can not watch it be described in this manner by one so uninformed...
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft LLC...
George SMith <georgiemun@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been
surfing around the forums for information on the aircraft. Since it is
so new, it is difficult to find many people who have experience with it.
My concern is that I am need to research this well as spending this
much money on a hobby is not well spent if I am not happy with my
purchase 2-3 years down the line.
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys
asking questions about the Lightning and one gentleman's thoughts on the
aircraft after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do
show quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few
cursory observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a
Lancair 235 or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to be
using a different wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but
overall it seems similar enough to at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub
assemblies so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting
this together. It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one
or two areas would need a bit of a closer examination in order to see
the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think
of is: Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts
and their work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before
committing. The first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder
assembly. Even a cursory glance shows that the molded part came out of
the tool with surface wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched up
and separated from the tool. Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage,
that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to be poorly shaped (look
at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities that make it look
like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading
and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat,
but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except
poor tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar -
possibly the strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of
all, it is a combination of graphite and glass. While feasible,
generally this type of structure is not recommended unless one really
understands how the materials behave together. The significant
difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes each
component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going
to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in
the design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.
From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the
graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is
laid up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which
way. Not really a good presentation and certainly not something that
most companies would want to use as a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that
they took from some analysis program without really verifying what they
were presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate
and flight proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the
claims, although it is a clean airplane and some of the numbers may not
be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even
without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you
hire someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and
engineering issues and have him or her go through their factory with
you.
This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand
composites); so I did a little research on some of the ponts regarding
the spar and hear similar opinions. I would be interested in hearing
why the wing spar is constructed in this manner? Why is carbon fiber
just through the interior of the wing and not out to the end of the
spar. Is there a design consideration in this? The points about the
finish are not really that big a concern to me. While true that the
finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I
believe this because their products are delivered in a more complete
state, (those companies having the opportunity to do more finishing on
their end), I don't mind a little body work now and then.
Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a
redesign of the Esqual? Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar
composition as the Lightning. If so, this would lend some validation to
the fact that there must be several of those flying and no real problems
to speak of?
Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality
or design, so do not take offense. I am just searching for some answers
to questions that have been raised about the design and finish before I
make the decision to put down my money.
Thanks for any help that you can provide.
Georgie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask
your
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
Message 12
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
To be fair, I think the poster was commenting based on the pictures that are shown
on the Lightning web site, and not trying to tear down the aircraft, but raising
questions based on these pictures. If the pictures are of the prototype,
then that is all a visitor has to go by and while they may not be representative
of the kits beign produced today, they do show some manufacturing issues.
I think it is better to post a limited number of pics rather than post those
that raise questions.
Passionate users tend to be very defensive of their aircraft, and I would feel
the same way, but you guys are commenting on something that you own; can see,
feel and fly every day. So far, I only have their web site to go by. You have
to admit, the pics of the wing spar and some of the components are not the cleanest
of build quality with frayed carbon fiber showing in the root of the spar
and ripples in the finish.
Does this matter, probably not, but I don't think I would post these pics on my
web site. I would go for something a little more representative of the quality
delivered today.
Someone commented that I should go and see one, I will, at Sun n Fun. Then I will
follow that up with a trip to a local dealer to see some in the build stages
if they have any on site.
As far as being a copy of another aircraft, I did not take his comment that way.
I took it as a complement. There are too many similar designs to be loosing
sleep over the fact that the Lightning looks like a Lancair, which looks like
a WT9, which looks like a Pulsar, which looks like a.... I felt like he was
paying the aircraft a complement.
Let me ask a couple of questions again, please take no offense to what I am asking.
1. Does the Lightning use the same wing spar design as the Esqual?
2. Why does the carbon fiber stop at the root of the wing and does not continue
through to the tip of the spar? Is there a reason for this?
3. What is the third material in the spar (kind of looks like wood)?
4. Has there been improvements in the finish since the web site pictures were taken?
5. I know that there has been load testing performed on the wing, but has this
also been performed for load over time? Some times the mixing of glass and carbon
fiber does not rear it's ugly head right away. What kind of testing is performed
to verify the integrity over many hours of use?
Understand that while I am an engineer, I am not in any way shape or form an aircraft
designer. I am just trying to educate myself before a potential purchase
Thanks again for your responses.
Gerogie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92651#92651
Message 13
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
In a message dated 2/3/2007 2:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
georgiemun@yahoo.com writes:
Let me ask a couple of questions again, please take no offense to what I am
asking.
1. Does the Lightning use the same wing spar design as the Esqual?
2. Why does the carbon fiber stop at the root of the wing and does not
continue through to the tip of the spar? Is there a reason for this?
3. What is the third material in the spar (kind of looks like wood)?
4. Has there been improvements in the finish since the web site pictures
were taken?
5. I know that there has been load testing performed on the wing, but has
this also been performed for load over time? Some times the mixing of glass
and carbon fiber does not rear it's ugly head right away. What kind of testing
is performed to verify the integrity over many hours of use?
Since you are advocating the taking of no offense, I will assume you will do
likewise. Some of us are a little sensitive when we offer personal
testimony as to the veracity of something and the reader chooses to reject it.
I
will assume you are new to composites and trust you will not be offended by my
explanations.
1) As I said before, there is no carbon fiber used in a Lightning airframe.
So all of your questions that relate to carbon fiber are moot. I realize you
see a black color, but that is a pigment, not carbon. Carbon fiber is very
expensive and difficult to work with. As I understand it , there was a
carbon fiber option for the Esqual, but the weight savings hardly justified the
load it lifted from the purchasers bank account.
2) The substance that looks like wood is foam, although wood is used at one
point in the spar (it carries little load) As you may know, wood and foam
mostly act as spacers for the fiber structure and contribute little to the
strength. It is the fibers themselves that have the strength.
3) As I also said before, WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU SEE IN THE PICTURES, the
finish on the parts is considered to be first rate. Since I have done my time
sanding epoxy, I think I know what I am talking about. When body shop guys,
particularly Corvette people, tell me the finish is great, I tend to believe
them. If you are anywhere near Martinsburg, WV, come and see us. You can
see for yourself. Check _www.greenlandings.com_ (http://www.greenlandings.com)
for directions and more information. Oh, yeah, the latest website could
use better spelling and diction, but that is my fault. We just needed to get
the info up, I will adjust it later.
I dont know if the spar is the same as the Esqual. I doubt if anyone does.
Unless someone were to peel one of each apart and compare them, it would be
difficult to say for certain. However spar design in this type of aircraft is
well known from such planes as the Glasairs, Lancairs, Pulsar's, etc.
Also well known is how to test them. When you looked on the website and
noticed all the sandbags stacked on the wing and the claim that it exceeded the
strength of 95% of the General Aviation aircraft flying today, I should think
you would be impressed.
The only sure way to verify integrety over many hours of use is to use it
for many hours!! As you may also know, epoxys have a half life, typically
over 20 years. So the wings will actually be getting stronger for a lenthy
period of time before they begin to get weaker. The only real enimy of epoxy
is ultraviolet, although heat can soften the material and certain organic
solvents can degrade the surface. So there is no real testing other than heat,
some solvents and ultraviolet that will indicate longevity. Testing samples
of epoxy mixes used during construction is standard in the industry and will
easily reveal substandard batches. If you have a good design, assemble it
identically each time and test your epoxies, it is quite reasonable to
expect long life with a good ultraviolet shield.
I hope this helps.
Doug Koenigsberg
Message 14
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Georgie:
Your questions are valid and to be honest, I asked the same kind of
questions when first looking at the Lightning. To your question about
carbon fiber in the wing spar, yes, it does look like carbon fiber in there
and I am not really sure myself the purpose behind it inside the wing as
opposed to extending it out to the end of the spar. The pic I attached
shows the fiber strands extending just beyond the wing root. I believe that
Arion uses CF in the airframe around the dash and attach points for the
wings. This is certainly a logical place to put it and would add rigidity.
In the 2nd pic I have attached you can see this as well as a black stripe
down the middle of the floor where the two fuse halves join together, as
well as around the firewall. I don't know if that is CF or something else.
As for the Lightning being a redesign of the Esqual, no, I believe they took
everything that they knew about the Esqual and may have started from
scratch. I would think that the aircraft are probably very similar since
Buz I believe is flying an Esqual with Lightning wings? (Buz would need to
confirm this).
I think your question was leading to the point that if there are so many
Esquals flying without mishap and the Lightning's basic design is based on
the Esqual, then this adds proof to the robustness of the Lightning design.
I would agree with that, but the designers would need to confirm that
statement regarding design.
As far as the finish, I have no issues with how the aircraft parts are
shipped to the dealers. You will need to do some sanding and body work, but
overall, they are nicely done. Who ever built a Glasair, or Lancair without
sanding?
Something else that you have not mentioned. This aircraft flies behind the
Jabiru 3300. What a great little engine! Direct drive, standard auto
plugs, easy to get as everything, (see attached pic). Beautiful!
I agree with Doug. Take a hike down to Green Landings and see for yourself.
It did wonders for my confidence, and went a LONG way towards making up my
mind to buy a Lightning. In fact, if you would like to go down together
some time, I will ride with you. It's worth another trip.
Jim!
Message 15
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: Quality of build and durability? |
The other thing to know Georgie is that this list is VERY active for such a
small number of owners and they are all VERY willing to share information
and help each other out. I guess that is because they are so passionate
about their aircraft, and why not? It's a great bird.
You will find Ryan down at Green Landings knowledgeable and helpful if you
want to give him a call.
Message 16
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
George,
Before you come on the scene several were saying that they wanted
updated and more pics on the website. Pete said that that is in the works,
but it is difficult since they're in a time crunch and trying to help
builders finish their planes. So I have been posting some pics. Doug has
done a good job of trying to answer your questions.
Again, let me say welcome to the site and to try not to be offended. As
Doug implied this is a Lightning enthusiast site. Also try to understand
that folks like Doug at Green Landings have taken on the Lightning as a
builder assist and sales rep. These aren't guys that were hired by the guys
at Shelbyville, but rather he took it on to try to sale planes and make
money for his family. I doubt he'd take on a project plane that wasn't
something of quality, although I've admitedly never met him. There are
several Lightning owners on here, several that are interested, and several
that are just want to owners like myself. I don't work for the company, but
have flown the Lightnings and try to keep the Lightning list flowing with
present happenings at SYI. Buz has flown the prototype to do an indipendent
flight test for verifying numbers. Earl has done some flight testing with
the light sport compliant LIghtnings. The guys at Shelbyville are way too
busy to keep track of all of the traffic that is on the Lightning List. So
usually owners/builders/pilots try to share what information they have on
different subjects. As far as I know nobody that has bought one has been
dissappointed although several have been pleasently surprised.
I can post some pics of current planes on here if you'd like. The quality
is as good as any that I've seen, and better than most. I can also send you
by private email some of the flight test data so that you can go over it
data point by point if you are still in doubt of the performance figures. I
believe that the numbers are pretty incredible. In fact, I doubt there's
any other production aircraft with the same fuel burns and performance. I
am working on doing some indipendent flight testing for some speed mods
right now and after I finish that I can give you those numbers if you want.
Hope to see you around. If you get a chance to fly the plane and look it
over thoroughly I think that you'll come around and joing the "Lightning
Legion." Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy
Awards http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2
Message 17
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Buz's plane is an Esqual with Esqual wings. His plane does have a Lightning
cowling (modified for the shorter snout on the Esqual, and it has Lightning
gear leg fairings and wheels and wheel fairings. This alone made his plane
about 50mph faster! The overall shape of the planes is similar but it is a
different plane. Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces
Message 18
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Doug:
No, I don't take offense, how can I? I'm just learning like many others on here.
I appreciate your answers, however, I think that maybe Nick? would be better
suited to answering the questions about the use of carbon fiber in the Lightning.
Jim:
Thanks for the pics, they clear up some questions in my mind. I may take you up
on that trip down to Green Landings. They sound like a good bunch of guys and
if I was driving, you would be right on the way down.
Brian:
Thanks for the offer. I did see your pics posted on the Matronics forum and they
actually rekindled my interest in the aircraft, thanks again.
Nick:
I forgot to answer your question as to where the post was. It was on the Homebuilt Airplanes forums www.homebuiltairplanes.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92684#92684
Message 19
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Thanks for the clarification...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Whittingham
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: Qualith of build and durability?
<dashvii@hotmail.com>
Buz's plane is an Esqual with Esqual wings. His plane does have a Lightning
cowling (modified for the shorter snout on the Esqual, and it has Lightning
gear leg fairings and wheels and wheel fairings. This alone made his plane
about 50mph faster! The overall shape of the planes is similar but it is a
different plane. Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces
Message 20
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
The fellow who posted the before metioned Forwarded thread is on a site called www.homebuiltairplanes.com. name is ORION and is the site moderator....read some if the other posts if you will and make your own conclusions...
Nick
George SMith <georgiemun@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been
surfing around the forums for information on the aircraft. Since it is so new,
it is difficult to find many people who have experience with it. My concern
is that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby
is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the line.
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking questions
about the Lightning and one gentlemans thoughts on the aircraft after visiting
the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show quite
a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory observations.
First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235 or 320.
There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different wing section
(although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar enough to
at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies so you
can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together. It looks
to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would need a bit
of a closer examination in order to see the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is: Sloppy.
If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their work
I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The first picture
I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance
shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost
as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at
the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to
be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities
that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading
and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat,
but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor
tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the strength,
but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a combination
of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of structure is not
recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave together.
The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes
each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going
to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in the design
of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphite ends
petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is very
sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a good presentation
and certainly not something that most companies would want to use as
a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they took from
some analysis program without really verifying what they were presenting -
I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too
would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean airplane
and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea,
I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire someone
in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering issues
and have him or her go through their factory with you.
This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so I
did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear similar
opinions. I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is constructed
in this manner? Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the wing and
not out to the end of the spar. Is there a design consideration in this? The
points about the finish are not really that big a concern to me. While true
that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe
this because their products are delivered in a more complete state, (those
companies having the opportunity to do more finishing on their end), I don't
mind a little body work now and then.
Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a redesign
of the Esqual? Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar composition as
the Lightning. If so, this would lend some validation to the fact that there
must be several of those flying and no real problems to speak of?
Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or design,
so do not take offense. I am just searching for some answers to questions that
have been raised about the design and finish before I make the decision to
put down my money.
Thanks for any help that you can provide.
Georgie
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question
on Yahoo! Answers.
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
Message 21
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
Nick,
George wants an affirmation that there is not any carbon fiber in the
Lightning from you. You would be the person to know. Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
Message 22
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 |
|
Here's a couple of more pics everybody:
DSC 1687 - Correcting my old mistake. This is Rick Bowen's Panel
DSC1688 - This is Rick's plane, it will be inspected this coming week and
flying soon after. I'll get a couple of pics with the wings on where I have
more space to take the pic.
DSC1689 - This is an inside view looking from behind the seat aft to the
tail. You can see the torque tube, rudder cables, bulkheads, a bunch of
dust, etc. Just thought that would be interesting. The baggage area is
from behind the seats to the bulkhead there when it is closed off.
DSC1690 - This is Linda's plane. It is a beautiful paint scheme and awesome
panel. Should be up before too much longer
DSC1692 - Cockpit in Linda's plane, dual Chelton EFIS
DSC1693 - I don't know if anybody can see this, but that metal box is where
the main wing spars cross through the body of the plane underneath the seat
and then bolts go through both of the overlapping spars at that point.
DSC1694 - Duane Sorenson's plane, waiting on inspection and then it'll fly
DSC1695 - Duane's cockpit
Enjoy Brian W.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy
Awards http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2
Message 23
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: Qualith of build and durability? |
dashvii(at)hotmail.com wrote:
> Nick,
> George wants an affirmation that there is not any carbon fiber in the
> Lightning from you. You would be the person to know. Brian W.
>
>
I really would like to know what the airframe and wing spar are made of?
Can you help me Nick?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92743#92743
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! --
|