Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:38 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS)
2. 06:50 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Jim Langley)
3. 07:07 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Brian Whittingham)
4. 08:14 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS)
5. 08:24 AM - Another New Lightning (JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS)
6. 08:34 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Jim Langley)
7. 08:37 AM - Re: Another New Lightning (Jim Langley)
8. 09:09 AM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (Brian Whittingham)
9. 12:15 PM - Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead (JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS)
10. 12:54 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Pete)
11. 01:30 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Jim and Mary Young)
12. 04:49 PM - Another New Lightning (Pete)
13. 06:43 PM - Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Jim Langley)
14. 06:45 PM - Re: Another New Lightning (Jim Langley)
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 |
We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning; they aren't
sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows that are
hinged on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or closed -
no partial opening.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
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
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 |
That's kind of cool. Are they large enough to stick a camera lens through,
or is that not practical? Also, do you have a pic of the installation?
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning; they aren't
> sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows that are hinged
> on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or closed - no partial
> opening.
>
> Linda
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* N1BZRich@aol.com
> *To:* lightning-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
>
>
> 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
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
Jim,
Here's a blow up of a pic that I took. Not of the canopy, but I cropped
it. The windows are similar to many different versions of Piper Arrows that
I have flown. Just a little fold down. You could probably get a camera
lense through the hole, but it's not very practical as the wing is right
there. You might could turn the plane on its side every now and again and
get a shot out of it. Regardless it helps with cockpit ventilation. It's
similar to Buz's sliding window, just this one henges and folds down. Brian
W.
From: "Jim Langley" <pequeajim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
That's kind of cool. Are they large enough to stick a camera lens through,
or is that not practical? Also, do you have a pic of the installation?
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning; they aren't
>sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows that are hinged
>on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or closed - no
>partial
>opening.
>
> Linda
>
>----- Original Message -----
>*From:* N1BZRich@aol.com
>*To:* lightning-list@matronics.com
>*Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
>*Subject:* Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
>
>
> 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
>
>
>*
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>*
>
>*
>
>*
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
JIm,
Brian answered the question about camera lens but I think you can
see the windows a little better in the picture I am attaching. We did
not install the side windows; the canopy was delivered with the windows
installed.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Langley
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
That's kind of cool. Are they large enough to stick a camera lens
through, or is that not practical? Also, do you have a pic of the
installation?
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning; they
aren't sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows that
are hinged on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or
closed - no partial opening.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Another New Lightning |
Lightning Fans,
I am attaching a picture of N59JL which was ready to fly on Feb 3
except for meeting the requirement of inspection because the FAA has
seen fit only to be a hindrance in the issuance of my permanent
registration certificate.
Anyway, we ran the engine and I taxied it around SYI a bit to see
how it felt. The panel powered up just fine and everything looks pretty
good. B&B Auto Trim of Shelbyville will be putting in the interior in
the next couple weeks; gear fairings and wheel pants will go on after
we return to SYI with registration in hand. With the paint trim on the
canopy and the spinner painted, I think it will look even better.
Anyway, we are now back home and awaiting the registration so we can
return to SYI for inspection and flying.
Linda Mathias
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
VERY NICE! Thanks to you both for the information. THe reasont that I
asked is that my daughter LOVES to take pictures and is very excited about
going up in ANY aircraft that I fly. RIght now, I am flying a rental 172
and you can't open the windows and they are typically scratched so the pics
come out foggy. Having a big clear canopy will make things a little
better, Having a small window to stick the lens through might work too.
Will you have your aircraft at Sun N Fun? If so, I can get a look at them
when I'm at the show.
Jim!
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> JIm,
> Brian answered the question about camera lens but I think you can see
> the windows a little better in the picture I am attaching. We did not
> install the side windows; the canopy was delivered with the windows
> installed.
> Linda
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com>
> *To:* lightning-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, February 05, 2007 9:50 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
>
>
> That's kind of cool. Are they large enough to stick a camera lens
> through, or is that not practical? Also, do you have a pic of the
> installation?
>
> On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning; they
> > aren't sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows that are
> > hinged on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or closed - no
> > partial opening.
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* N1BZRich@aol.com
> > *To:* lightning-list@matronics.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> > *
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> >
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another New Lightning |
It looks beautiful Linda...
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Lightning Fans,
>
> I am attaching a picture of N59JL which was ready to fly on Feb 3
> except for meeting the requirement of inspection because the FAA has seen
> fit only to be a hindrance in the issuance of my permanent registration
> certificate.
>
> Anyway, we ran the engine and I taxied it around SYI a bit to see how
> it felt. The panel powered up just fine and everything looks pretty good.
> B&B Auto Trim of Shelbyville will be putting in the interior in the next
> couple weeks; gear fairings and wheel pants will go on after we return to
> SYI with registration in hand. With the paint trim on the canopy and the
> spinner painted, I think it will look even better.
>
> Anyway, we are now back home and awaiting the registration so we can
> return to SYI for inspection and flying.
>
> Linda Mathias
>
>
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: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
Jim,
I too love to shoot aerial photos. I did a photoshoot for a local paper
last year of industry around the city. We got some great pics. I had to
use a Cherokee 140. Well the wing was always in the way. The pilot wa an
ex- Air Force B-52 and F-111 pilot. He would crank it over 90 degrees and
let me get a shot. Problem was that we couldn't hold that but for a second.
I've found that high wing airplanes that the window will open fully or the
door can be removed is best for that. There is a Rans S7S with a Jabiru
firewall forward kit on it at Shelbyville right now. It'd make a fantastic
camera platform as the whole side of the plane can be removed for flight.
Brian W.
From: "Jim Langley" <pequeajim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
VERY NICE! Thanks to you both for the information. THe reasont that I
asked is that my daughter LOVES to take pictures and is very excited about
going up in ANY aircraft that I fly. RIght now, I am flying a rental 172
and you can't open the windows and they are typically scratched so the pics
come out foggy. Having a big clear canopy will make things a little
better, Having a small window to stick the lens through might work too.
Will you have your aircraft at Sun N Fun? If so, I can get a look at them
when I'm at the show.
Jim!
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> JIm,
> Brian answered the question about camera lens but I think you can see
>the windows a little better in the picture I am attaching. We did not
>install the side windows; the canopy was delivered with the windows
>installed.
> Linda
>----- Original Message -----
>
>*From:* Jim Langley <pequeajim@gmail.com>
>*To:* lightning-list@matronics.com
>*Sent:* Monday, February 05, 2007 9:50 AM
>*Subject:* Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
>
>
>That's kind of cool. Are they large enough to stick a camera lens
>through, or is that not practical? Also, do you have a pic of the
>installation?
>
> On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning; they
> > aren't sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows that
>are
> > hinged on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or closed -
>no
> > partial opening.
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* N1BZRich@aol.com
> > *To:* lightning-list@matronics.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> > *
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> >
>*
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>*
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
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: Baggage area and rear bulkhead |
Jim,
We plan to be at Sun 'n' Fun if the registration comes in time for
the inspection and 40 hours to be flown off. Just in a holding
pattern right now!
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Langley
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
VERY NICE! Thanks to you both for the information. THe reasont that
I asked is that my daughter LOVES to take pictures and is very excited
about going up in ANY aircraft that I fly. RIght now, I am flying a
rental 172 and you can't open the windows and they are typically
scratched so the pics come out foggy. Having a big clear canopy will
make things a little better, Having a small window to stick the lens
through might work too.
Will you have your aircraft at Sun N Fun? If so, I can get a look at
them when I'm at the show.
Jim!
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS <lbmathias@verizon.net> wrote:
JIm,
Brian answered the question about camera lens but I think you
can see the windows a little better in the picture I am attaching. We
did not install the side windows; the canopy was delivered with the
windows installed.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Langley
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
That's kind of cool. Are they large enough to stick a camera lens
through, or is that not practical? Also, do you have a pic of the
installation?
On 2/5/07, JOSEPH MATHIAS LINDA MATHIAS < lbmathias@verizon.net>
wrote:
We have two side windows in the canopy of our Lightning;
they aren't sliding windows but are actually small rectangular windows
that are hinged on the bottom so open down. They will be either open or
closed - no partial opening.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BZRich@aol.com
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Baggage area and rear bulkhead
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">
http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Qualith of build and durability? |
Hi All,
The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really
make me shake my head. The quote from the moderator of the
www.homebuiltairplanes.com <http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/> web site is
another one of those. It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a
self proclaimed "expert" and then makes statements based on assumptions
about photos posted on another site.
Sloppy? He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin. If he even had a
cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not
wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.
He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them
disappear. The material was not bunched up. Nor was it separated from the
tool. He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid
assumptions.
Second, he talks about the spar. He says that the combination of glass and
carbon is "not recommended". Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar,
Boeing, and others. Maybe they will change their wing construction to
comply with this "expert". If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can
change their wing before the first of the "New Generation" aircraft are
sold! He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it
extends on out the spar. You just can't see it in the photo. Again, an
"expert" making assumptions about items he can't even see in a photo.
He questions the spar strength? On what basis? Maybe his vast knowledge of
composites? We tested that wing to 11 G positive. Then we tested it to 11
G negative. Then in the high speed stall configuration. Photos of the test
are on the web site. 95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold
up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex,
Zenith, and most others.
Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an
"analysis program" and he would prefer to see "something that's a bit more
accurate and flight proven". Again he's assuming we are not being
forthright with our performance numbers. Well, those who know us and build
with us know that we have not used "analysis programs" in the development of
this aircraft. We built it the way we thought it should be built based on
our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt
aircraft. We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and
reported the performance we saw. We prove it again every week by flying
beside Vans RV-6 & 7's and finding that we are faster when flown in the
economy cruise mode. The RV's will go faster if the pilots push the
throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster
using our 5.5 gph. We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when
Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away
from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get
back to the airport and fly a std pattern! Maybe we'll call that the Turkey
Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.
To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed
composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about, we are
encouraged by what they say about our kit. We will get better yet as this
year goes by and you can rest assured that we won't be reporting performance
we don't see.
Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can't always
believe the info posted on the net. Too often list members make
observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of
expertise. Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still.. Call me old
fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows
postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility
to have some idea of what they are talking about.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM
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 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
question on Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1
NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx> Answers.
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: | Qualith of build and durability? |
Seems like it would be good if you (or Nick) put your rebuttal on the
homebuiltairplanes.com website under the same thread as the comments were
made. Letting it stand unchallenged there only seems to give it a sense of
legitimacy. Perhaps some of the other happy Lightning owners could also
respond there. However, I realize time is an issue so if you can't it's
understandable but unfortunate.
Jim Young
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Hi All,
The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really
make me shake my head. The quote from the moderator of the
www.homebuiltairplanes.com <http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/> web site is
another one of those. It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a
self proclaimed "expert" and then makes statements based on assumptions
about photos posted on another site.
Sloppy? He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin. If he even had a
cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not
wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.
He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them
disappear. The material was not bunched up. Nor was it separated from the
tool. He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid
assumptions.
Second, he talks about the spar. He says that the combination of glass and
carbon is "not recommended". Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar,
Boeing, and others. Maybe they will change their wing construction to
comply with this "expert". If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can
change their wing before the first of the "New Generation" aircraft are
sold! He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it
extends on out the spar. You just can't see it in the photo. Again, an
"expert" making assumptions about items he can't even see in a photo.
He questions the spar strength? On what basis? Maybe his vast knowledge of
composites? We tested that wing to 11 G positive. Then we tested it to 11
G negative. Then in the high speed stall configuration. Photos of the test
are on the web site. 95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold
up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex,
Zenith, and most others.
Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an
"analysis program" and he would prefer to see "something that's a bit more
accurate and flight proven". Again he's assuming we are not being
forthright with our performance numbers. Well, those who know us and build
with us know that we have not used "analysis programs" in the development of
this aircraft. We built it the way we thought it should be built based on
our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt
aircraft. We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and
reported the performance we saw. We prove it again every week by flying
beside Vans RV-6 & 7's and finding that we are faster when flown in the
economy cruise mode. The RV's will go faster if the pilots push the
throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster
using our 5.5 gph. We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when
Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away
from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get
back to the airport and fly a std pattern! Maybe we'll call that the Turkey
Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.
To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed
composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about, we are
encouraged by what they say about our kit. We will get better yet as this
year goes by and you can rest assured that we won't be reporting performance
we don't see.
Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can't always
believe the info posted on the net. Too often list members make
observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of
expertise. Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still.. Call me old
fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows
postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility
to have some idea of what they are talking about.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM
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 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
question on Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1
NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx> Answers.
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: | Another New Lightning |
DAR Gary Meuer hands Rick Bowen his Experimental Amateur Built airworthiness
certificate Monday evening Feb 12th. Congrats to Rick. After a weekend of
hard work and final touches the Lightning passed inspection with no issues.
Photo 22 shows Rick's Lightning in the foreground, Linda & Joe Mathias'
(yellow & red), the Lightning prototype, and in the corner Duane Sorenson's.
Duane's is ready for inspection as soon as Duane can return to Shelbyville.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim and Mary
Young
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Seems like it would be good if you (or Nick) put your rebuttal on the
homebuiltairplanes.com website under the same thread as the comments were
made. Letting it stand unchallenged there only seems to give it a sense of
legitimacy. Perhaps some of the other happy Lightning owners could also
respond there. However, I realize time is an issue so if you can't it's
understandable but unfortunate.
Jim Young
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Hi All,
The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really
make me shake my head. The quote from the moderator of the
www.homebuiltairplanes.com <http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/> web site is
another one of those. It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a
self proclaimed "expert" and then makes statements based on assumptions
about photos posted on another site.
Sloppy? He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin. If he even had a
cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not
wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.
He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them
disappear. The material was not bunched up. Nor was it separated from the
tool. He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid
assumptions.
Second, he talks about the spar. He says that the combination of glass and
carbon is "not recommended". Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar,
Boeing, and others. Maybe they will change their wing construction to
comply with this "expert". If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can
change their wing before the first of the "New Generation" aircraft are
sold! He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it
extends on out the spar. You just can't see it in the photo. Again, an
"expert" making assumptions about items he can't even see in a photo.
He questions the spar strength? On what basis? Maybe his vast knowledge of
composites? We tested that wing to 11 G positive. Then we tested it to 11
G negative. Then in the high speed stall configuration. Photos of the test
are on the web site. 95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold
up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex,
Zenith, and most others.
Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an
"analysis program" and he would prefer to see "something that's a bit more
accurate and flight proven". Again he's assuming we are not being
forthright with our performance numbers. Well, those who know us and build
with us know that we have not used "analysis programs" in the development of
this aircraft. We built it the way we thought it should be built based on
our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt
aircraft. We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and
reported the performance we saw. We prove it again every week by flying
beside Vans RV-6 & 7's and finding that we are faster when flown in the
economy cruise mode. The RV's will go faster if the pilots push the
throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster
using our 5.5 gph. We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when
Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away
from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get
back to the airport and fly a std pattern! Maybe we'll call that the Turkey
Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.
To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed
composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about, we are
encouraged by what they say about our kit. We will get better yet as this
year goes by and you can rest assured that we won't be reporting performance
we don't see.
Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can't always
believe the info posted on the net. Too often list members make
observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of
expertise. Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still.. Call me old
fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows
postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility
to have some idea of what they are talking about.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM
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 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
question on Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1
NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx> Answers.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Qualith of build and durability? |
Well now I feel really embarrassed as I was the one who originally asked the
question about Arion Aircraft, looking for some input as to the aircraft
finish and performance indicators. Both Buz and Ryan have answered all of
my questions to my satisfaction and I want you all to know that I did not
let one man's opinion affect my direction to purchase a Lightning, (or not).
Georgie; I have pretty much kept my nose out of this because Pete is right;
there are so many "knowledgeable" people on the internet, it can be
confusing as to who to believe. I have asked around and understand the
plusses and minuses of the Lightning design that I am very satisfied in what
I would get when purchased. Believe me, there are NO airplanes out there
that do not have faults in some way. Maybe the aircraft is too fast, too
slow, requires too much finishing work, not enough, nothing is perfect. In
looking at the Lightning, my determination is that the plusses FAR OUTWEIGH
any minuses that I would ever have to deal with. That's why I like the
aircraft so much.
Trust me. Let's ride down and take a look at what Ryan has in the shop. It
will answer all your questions.
Jim!
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim and Mary
Young
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Seems like it would be good if you (or Nick) put your rebuttal on the
homebuiltairplanes.com website under the same thread as the comments were
made. Letting it stand unchallenged there only seems to give it a sense of
legitimacy. Perhaps some of the other happy Lightning owners could also
respond there. However, I realize time is an issue so if you can't it's
understandable but unfortunate.
Jim Young
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Hi All,
The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really
make me shake my head. The quote from the moderator of the
www.homebuiltairplanes.com <http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/> web site is
another one of those. It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a
self proclaimed "expert" and then makes statements based on assumptions
about photos posted on another site.
Sloppy? He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin. If he even had a
cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not
wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.
He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them
disappear. The material was not bunched up. Nor was it separated from the
tool. He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid
assumptions.
Second, he talks about the spar. He says that the combination of glass and
carbon is "not recommended". Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar,
Boeing, and others. Maybe they will change their wing construction to
comply with this "expert". If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can
change their wing before the first of the "New Generation" aircraft are
sold! He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it
extends on out the spar. You just can't see it in the photo. Again, an
"expert" making assumptions about items he can't even see in a photo.
He questions the spar strength? On what basis? Maybe his vast knowledge of
composites? We tested that wing to 11 G positive. Then we tested it to 11
G negative. Then in the high speed stall configuration. Photos of the test
are on the web site. 95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold
up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex,
Zenith, and most others.
Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an
"analysis program" and he would prefer to see "something that's a bit more
accurate and flight proven". Again he's assuming we are not being
forthright with our performance numbers. Well, those who know us and build
with us know that we have not used "analysis programs" in the development of
this aircraft. We built it the way we thought it should be built based on
our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt
aircraft. We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and
reported the performance we saw. We prove it again every week by flying
beside Vans RV-6 & 7's and finding that we are faster when flown in the
economy cruise mode. The RV's will go faster if the pilots push the
throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster
using our 5.5 gph. We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when
Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away
from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get
back to the airport and fly a std pattern! Maybe we'll call that the Turkey
Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.
To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed
composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about, we are
encouraged by what they say about our kit. We will get better yet as this
year goes by and you can rest assured that we won't be reporting performance
we don't see.
Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can't always
believe the info posted on the net. Too often list members make
observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of
expertise. Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still.. Call me old
fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows
postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility
to have some idea of what they are talking about.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM
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 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
question on Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1
NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx> Answers.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Another New Lightning |
Congratulations Rick!
Linda & Joe. You're next!
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: Lightning-List: Another New Lightning
DAR Gary Meuer hands Rick Bowen his Experimental Amateur Built airworthiness
certificate Monday evening Feb 12th. Congrats to Rick. After a weekend of
hard work and final touches the Lightning passed inspection with no issues.
Photo 22 shows Rick's Lightning in the foreground, Linda & Joe Mathias'
(yellow & red), the Lightning prototype, and in the corner Duane Sorenson's.
Duane's is ready for inspection as soon as Duane can return to Shelbyville.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim and Mary
Young
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Seems like it would be good if you (or Nick) put your rebuttal on the
homebuiltairplanes.com website under the same thread as the comments were
made. Letting it stand unchallenged there only seems to give it a sense of
legitimacy. Perhaps some of the other happy Lightning owners could also
respond there. However, I realize time is an issue so if you can't it's
understandable but unfortunate.
Jim Young
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?
Hi All,
The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really
make me shake my head. The quote from the moderator of the
www.homebuiltairplanes.com <http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/> web site is
another one of those. It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a
self proclaimed "expert" and then makes statements based on assumptions
about photos posted on another site.
Sloppy? He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin. If he even had a
cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not
wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.
He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them
disappear. The material was not bunched up. Nor was it separated from the
tool. He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid
assumptions.
Second, he talks about the spar. He says that the combination of glass and
carbon is "not recommended". Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar,
Boeing, and others. Maybe they will change their wing construction to
comply with this "expert". If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can
change their wing before the first of the "New Generation" aircraft are
sold! He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it
extends on out the spar. You just can't see it in the photo. Again, an
"expert" making assumptions about items he can't even see in a photo.
He questions the spar strength? On what basis? Maybe his vast knowledge of
composites? We tested that wing to 11 G positive. Then we tested it to 11
G negative. Then in the high speed stall configuration. Photos of the test
are on the web site. 95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold
up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex,
Zenith, and most others.
Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an
"analysis program" and he would prefer to see "something that's a bit more
accurate and flight proven". Again he's assuming we are not being
forthright with our performance numbers. Well, those who know us and build
with us know that we have not used "analysis programs" in the development of
this aircraft. We built it the way we thought it should be built based on
our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt
aircraft. We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and
reported the performance we saw. We prove it again every week by flying
beside Vans RV-6 & 7's and finding that we are faster when flown in the
economy cruise mode. The RV's will go faster if the pilots push the
throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster
using our 5.5 gph. We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when
Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away
from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get
back to the airport and fly a std pattern! Maybe we'll call that the Turkey
Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.
To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed
composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about, we are
encouraged by what they say about our kit. We will get better yet as this
year goes by and you can rest assured that we won't be reporting performance
we don't see.
Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can't always
believe the info posted on the net. Too often list members make
observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of
expertise. Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still.. Call me old
fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows
postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility
to have some idea of what they are talking about.
Pete
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM
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 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
question on Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1
NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx> Answers.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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! --
|