---------------------------------------------------------- Lightning-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 02/03/07: 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:45:18 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead From: "Scotty" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:33:51 AM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:33 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead From: "Scotty" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:49 AM PST US From: George SMith Subject: Lightning-List: Test 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:29 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:47:23 AM PST US From: George SMith 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:47:07 AM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:26 AM PST US From: Kayberg@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:03:52 AM PST US From: Kayberg@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:40 AM PST US From: nick otterback 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:23 AM PST US From: "Johnny Thompson" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:11 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Qualith of build and durability? From: "georgiemun" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:33 PM PST US From: Kayberg@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:38:59 PM PST US From: "Jim Langley" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:05 PM PST US From: "Jim Langley" Subject: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:43 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:27 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:59:27 PM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Qualith of build and durability? From: "georgiemun" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:00:08 PM PST US From: "Jim Langley" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:40 PM PST US From: nick otterback Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:45:31 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:28:21 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: Lightning-List: few more 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:56:58 PM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Qualith of build and durability? From: "georgiemun" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message lightning-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Lightning-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/lightning-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/lightning-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.