Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:33 AM - another's concern (deuskid)
2. 06:40 AM - Re: another's concern (Jim Langley)
3. 06:45 AM - Re: Flight test results (Brian Whittingham)
4. 07:22 AM - Re: another's concern (nick otterback)
5. 07:32 AM - Re: another's concern (Pete)
6. 07:32 AM - Re: another's concern (Jim Langley)
7. 06:10 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
8. 06:11 PM - Re: another's concern (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
9. 06:43 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Jim Langley)
10. 06:46 PM - Re: another's concern (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | another's concern |
In a different forum I recommended through a private message someone in Europe
they consider a Lightning [they were discussing Cozy, RV-9 or -7, Lancair and
a few others and want a kit and miserly fuel consumption] the germane portion
of their private reply follows:
> I already knew about Lightning and had searched as much info of their product
as I could find from the web. It looks to be pretty much copy of Esqual which
is pretty much a modified copy of Pulsar. The 1425 lbs gross weight is the most
limiting factor on lightning. And it can be possible that the empty weight
isn't exactly as light as they promise, it could be more, which would mean the
useful load to be pretty crappy. The 775 lbs empty weight is possible, but it
may be too optimistic as well, especially taking in account the required equipment
is usually not included on that count. Someone commented on Internet that
the Lightnings have crappy laminate quality compared to Lancair. Crappy usually
also is the synonym of heavy. RV-7 or 9 does not have much larger useful load
(only a bit larger), but a metal plane usually weights pretty much as promised
as empty whereas the weight of a composite plane can vary. E.g. one TL-96
Star that was being imported to Finland weighted 340 kg = 748 lbs empty whereas
the company promised that it would have weighted only 265 kg = 583 lbs.
I'm not knowledgeable or experienced enought to address the stated concerns. How
valid are they?
Thanks
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114691#114691
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: another's concern |
I think it is too easy yo make direct comparisons of the Lightning to toehr
aircraft like the RVs and Lancair.
The first thing to remember is that the Lightning, weight and size wise
is about in the same class as most of the light sport aircraft. It is
heavier than most light sport, but remember that this is an aircraft that
has about the same performance as an RV7 and faster than a RV9, all while
burning 5-6 gph!
The fair comparison would be:
Lightning, (empty weight 775lbs, UL 650, cruise 175, stall 45),
Pulsar, (empty weight 775lbs, UL 625, cruise 165, stall 55 )
WT9: (empty weight 605lbs, UL 495, cruise 155, stall 35 )
SportCruiser: (empty weight 748lbs, UL 572, cruise 138, stall 32 )
Zodiac 601: (empty weight 695lbs, UL 625, cruise 160, stall 44 )
The other aircraft that you mentioned are running with a 180-200+hp 10gph
100LL only engine. That was not what I was looking for. You should also
note that the Lightning and Zodiac are the only ones in the list above
shipping with the Jabiru 3300. If you read some of the messages on the
Sportcruiser forums, there are a lot of frustrated people because SAW is not
delivering the SC with the 3300 and really does not have a delivery time
scheduled.
The weight of your aircraft is based on what you put in it. What you put in
it is based on your mission. Most people who load up their aircraft with
"goodies" know ahead of time that this will reduce their useful load and
accept it, no matter what airplane they are building...
Jim!
On 5/25/07, deuskid <empire.john@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a different forum I recommended through a private message someone in
> Europe they consider a Lightning [they were discussing Cozy, RV-9 or -7,
> Lancair and a few others and want a kit and miserly fuel consumption] the
> germane portion of their private reply follows:
>
>
> > I already knew about Lightning and had searched as much info of their
> product as I could find from the web. It looks to be pretty much copy of
> Esqual which is pretty much a modified copy of Pulsar. The 1425 lbs gross
> weight is the most limiting factor on lightning. And it can be possible that
> the empty weight isn't exactly as light as they promise, it could be more,
> which would mean the useful load to be pretty crappy. The 775 lbs empty
> weight is possible, but it may be too optimistic as well, especially taking
> in account the required equipment is usually not included on that count.
> Someone commented on Internet that the Lightnings have crappy laminate
> quality compared to Lancair. Crappy usually also is the synonym of heavy.
> RV-7 or 9 does not have much larger useful load (only a bit larger), but a
> metal plane usually weights pretty much as promised as empty whereas the
> weight of a composite plane can vary. E.g. one TL-96 Star that was being
> imported to Finland weighted 34!
> 0 kg = 748 lbs empty whereas the company promised that it would have
> weighted only 265 kg = 583 lbs.
>
>
> I'm not knowledgeable or experienced enought to address the stated
> concerns. How valid are they?
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114691#114691
>
>
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: Flight test results |
Earl,
There were two types of gap seals that I applied. The wider (6 inch?)
and the not so wide 2 inch duralar. I attached it simply by measuring the
gaps, then using carpet tape, available at any walmart. I then added speed
tape on top of that just to make sure that it stuck, but I think it would've
been fine without that. the widest strips went over the flaps and underside
of the aileron. The other went on the top of the ailerons and the bottom of
the elevator. I also had rub strips so that they wouldn't scuff the paint
on things like ailerons and elevator. I bet that you wouldn't add any more
than a pound, but I think that you'll just need to get the supplies together
and weigh it. We had to leave flaps up in our design, but if you took and
just covered the flap gap, leaving a small hole as to not touch the flap in
the raised position then I think you'd get the benefit plus the use of your
flaps. This is bound to do something for your fuel consumption, however we
did not test for that. The climb and glide should both go up, but I haven't
worked through all of that yet. When I do, I'll post the results. Faster
climbs mean that you get to altitude quicker and burn less fuel at altitude.
This sounds like it'd be perfect for your record attempt. Brian W.
From: EAFerguson@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Flight test results
Brian - and everybody else,
Results sound great to me! I was concerned about the possibility of
increased stall speed since I'm flying Light Sport, but that isn't a
problem. If I
can get +2 or 3K at 2750 it would be great, and I'll still be LSA legal.
That
might just eliminate one fuel stop on my coast to coast record run. It will
surely increase my max range and give me more margin on the long legs.
So - - What do I have to do to be able to install the gap seals?
I will need to get a weight for the materials since I'm bumping the 500 kg
limit now.
Earl Ferguson
N17EF
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
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: another's concern |
I think the fellow who wrote this has little or no knowledge of the lightning,
although he write as if he does....We have been dealing with composite aircraft
for some time now.of all makes.....and find that the finish on the lightning
components is better than many composite kits out there. As far as the empty
weight of the plane, 775 is very much reality and not just some number. One such
airplane at our facility weighed in at 787 and that has dual EFIS systems flat
radios ( which are twice as heavy as the round style, leather interior. you
get my point, it has all the fun stuff. Our demo, only slightly heavier with
wheel pants and auto pilot weighed in at 795, it does have most of the same
equipment and round radios.... The RV-9 with the 118 horse powerplant ( the specs
with this power plant are comporable to the lightning and the engine is about
the same horse) those planes weigh 1015 on their site and the gross is around
1600, 585 useful........not 625. And with the
bigger motor it is about 650 so that is close to ours. Being that there are 12
flying lightnings now and every one has come in with 15 lbs of each other (this
mostly due to panel choce and interior), not crappy hevay laminate, the posted
empty weight is very much real. If we dig deaper into how the lightning components
are built, and of course i am sure he did, one would find that we use
a system called vacum unfusion which yields a part that is within onces of the
last parts that came from that mold because the mold uses a specific amount
of resin and glass that are introduced into it, not what ever amount we feel like.
The lightning kit is mostly an assembly process with very little epoxy work
to do, that said unless the builder uses 10 layers of O90 glass, i am sure
they know what this is, and half a kit of aeropoxy to bond in the panel, they
will come out with the same weight. I am sure that a little more research would
have pointed to these facts before posting....One
thing to note is most what is said is followed by " possible", "could", "usually"
which are wonderful words of speculation and opinion not fact...Goes to show
you can post what you like in the Web.
Nick Otterback
deuskid <empire.john@gmail.com> wrote:
In a different forum I recommended through a private message someone in Europe
they consider a Lightning [they were discussing Cozy, RV-9 or -7, Lancair and
a few others and want a kit and miserly fuel consumption] the germane portion
of their private reply follows
> I already knew about Lightning and had searched as much info of their product
as I could find from the web. It looks to be pretty much copy of Esqual which
is pretty much a modified copy of Pulsar. The 1425 lbs gross weight is the most
limiting factor on lightning. And it can be possible that the empty weight
isn't exactly as light as they promise, it could be more, which would mean the
useful load to be pretty crappy. The 775 lbs empty weight is possible, but it
may be too optimistic as well, especially taking in account the required equipment
is usually not included on that count. Someone commented on Internet that
the Lightnings have crappy laminate quality compared to Lancair. Crappy usually
also is the synonym of heavy. RV-7 or 9 does not have much larger useful load
(only a bit larger), but a metal plane usually weights pretty much as promised
as empty whereas the weight of a composite plane can vary. E.g. one TL-96
Star that was being imported to Finland weighted
34!
0 kg = 748 lbs empty whereas the company promised that it would have weighted only
265 kg = 583 lbs.
I'm not knowledgeable or experienced enought to address the stated concerns. How
valid are they?
Thanks
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114691#114691
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
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's concern |
Here's another example of an expert declaring a lot of information he knows
nothing about. Or maybe I should say he is more like an old woman passing
along gossip that has no basis in fact.
No one in Europe has flown a Lightning and no one in Europe has any
knowledge of how a Lightning is built. But - the internet is full of advice
and when it comes from people like this person it is worth exactly what you
have paid for it.
Let me set some things straight. The last five Lightnings built have had an
empty weight of between 780 and 800 lbs. If these builders had installed a
light weight interior and left off the extra instruments the planes would
have weighed under 775.
I don't understand where his comments of 1425 being the most limiting
factor. That weight gives the Lightning a useful load of 650 lbs. An RV-6
series does not have any more than that and no one complains about not
enough capacity.
As far as crappy laminate - again here is an expert who has not seen a
Lightning but is passing on "authoritive information". In reality he is
passing on crappy gossip. Those who have seen the quality of the Lightning
fiberglass work always comment about how good it is. Weight is carefully
controlled on every piece by the layup method we use. We cannot get it over
weight as the amount of epoxy is carefully controlled. It really does not
exhibit much intelligence to site a poorly controlled Italian plane and
imply that any other plane would be done as poorly as that one.
I hope that most subscribers to this list can sort out junk mail like this
one and pay attention to those who have built and flown a Lightning like Buz
Rich, Brian Wittingham, Joe Cooper, Earl Ferguson, Linda Mathias, Bill
Hubbard, Rick Bowen, Ryan Gross, and others. These people know what they
are talking about as they have gained their knowledge from experience with
the Lightning.
It would be nice to know who the "private message came from. Those of us
with actual Lightning experience might have a few "private messages" for
him!
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of deuskid
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:33 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: another's concern
In a different forum I recommended through a private message someone in
Europe they consider a Lightning [they were discussing Cozy, RV-9 or -7,
Lancair and a few others and want a kit and miserly fuel consumption] the
germane portion of their private reply follows:
> I already knew about Lightning and had searched as much info of their
product as I could find from the web. It looks to be pretty much copy of
Esqual which is pretty much a modified copy of Pulsar. The 1425 lbs gross
weight is the most limiting factor on lightning. And it can be possible that
the empty weight isn't exactly as light as they promise, it could be more,
which would mean the useful load to be pretty crappy. The 775 lbs empty
weight is possible, but it may be too optimistic as well, especially taking
in account the required equipment is usually not included on that count.
Someone commented on Internet that the Lightnings have crappy laminate
quality compared to Lancair. Crappy usually also is the synonym of heavy.
RV-7 or 9 does not have much larger useful load (only a bit larger), but a
metal plane usually weights pretty much as promised as empty whereas the
weight of a composite plane can vary. E.g. one TL-96 Star that was being
imported to Finland weighted 34!
0 kg = 748 lbs empty whereas the company promised that it would have
weighted only 265 kg = 583 lbs.
I'm not knowledgeable or experienced enought to address the stated concerns.
How valid are they?
Thanks
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114691#114691
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: another's concern |
Hear hear!
Man, I wish I had said all that. Nick, you're my hero...
On 5/25/07, nick otterback <vettin74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think the fellow who wrote this has little or no knowledge of the
> lightning, although he write as if he does....We have been dealing with
> composite aircraft for some time now.of all makes.....and find that the
> finish on the lightning components is better than many composite kits out
> there. As far as the empty weight of the plane, 775 is very much reality and
> not just some number. One such airplane at our facility weighed in at 787
> and that has dual EFIS systems flat radios ( which are twice as heavy as the
> round style, leather interior. you get my point, it has all the fun stuff.
> Our demo, only slightly heavier with wheel pants and auto pilot weighed
> in at 795, it does have most of the same equipment and round radios.... The
> RV-9 with the 118 horse powerplant ( the specs with this power plant are
> comporable to the lightning and the engine is about the same horse) those
> planes weigh 1015 on their site and the gross is around 1600, 585
> useful........not 625. And with the bigger motor it is about 650 so that is
> close to ours. Being that there are 12 flying lightnings now and every one
> has come in with 15 lbs of each other (this mostly due to panel choce and
> interior), not crappy hevay laminate, the posted empty weight is very much
> real. If we dig deaper into how the lightning components are built, and of
> course i am sure he did, one would find that we use a system called vacum
> unfusion which yields a part that is within onces of the last parts that
> came from that mold because the mold uses a specific amount of resin and
> glass that are introduced into it, not what ever amount we feel like. The
> lightning kit is mostly an assembly process with very little epoxy work to
> do, that said unless the builder uses 10 layers of O90 glass, i am sure they
> know what this is, and half a kit of aeropoxy to bond in the panel, they
> will come out with the same weight. I am sure that a little more research
> would have pointed to these facts before posting....One thing to note is
> most what is said is followed by " possible", "could", "usually" which are
> wonderful words of speculation and opinion not fact...Goes to show you can
> post what you like in the Web.
>
> Nick Otterback
> *deuskid <empire.john@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> In a different forum I recommended through a private message someone in
> Europe they consider a Lightning [they were discussing Cozy, RV-9 or -7,
> Lancair and a few others and want a kit and miserly fuel consumption] the
> germane portion of their private reply follows
>
>
> > I already knew about Lightning and had searched as much info of their
> product as I could find from the web. It looks to be pretty much copy of
> Esqual which is pretty much a modified copy of Pulsar. The 1425 lbs gross
> weight is the most limiting factor on lightning. And it can be possible that
> the empty weight isn't exactly as light as they promise, it could be more,
> which would mean the useful load to be pretty crappy. The 775 lbs empty
> weight is possible, but it may be too optimistic as well, especially taking
> in account the required equipment is usually not included on that count.
> Someone commented on Internet that the Lightnings have crappy laminate
> quality compared to Lancair. Crappy usually also is the synonym of heavy.
> RV-7 or 9 does not have much larger useful load (only a bit larger), but a
> metal plane usually weights pretty much as promised as empty whereas the
> weight of a composite plane can vary. E.g. one TL-96 Star that was being
> imported to Finland weighted 34!
> 0 kg = 748 lbs empty whereas the company promised that it would have
> weighted only 265 kg = 583 lbs.
>
>
> I'm not knowledgeable or experienced
> ------------------------------
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48252/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>,
> not web links.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Fuel selector valve |
Jim,
Nick, Pete, and Doug have answered your fuel valve question, and I agree
totally with what they said. But let me add that I think the Andair line of
fuel valves is probably the best available. So I would definitely recommend
your use one of theirs.
However, why put a valve with a both position on a low wing airplane?
What does that do for you other than give you a potential for a "flame out".
In other words, it add a "trouble mode" that may or may not bite you. So, I
see no operational reason to have a both position - certainly not on a low
wing airplane. When I had a Cessna 170B, I almost never used the both
position. Why, because I wanted to know where my fuel was (how much and in which
tank). When you feed from both at the same time, one side will always feed
faster and then you are guessing how much is in which tank because the fuel
gauges are always inaccurate. We all know that the most accurate fuel gauge is
the one on your wrist.
The Lightning fuel gauges are probably better than most because Pete and
Nick have spent the extra money to provide the kits with the capacitance
type of tank quantity measuring system. They are certainly more accurate than
the float type. Add to that the ability to put a fuel flow system on the
Jabiru and you have a totally separate back up fuel quantity system. The fuel
flow system can be calibrated so that your "totalizer" is very accurate.
Blue Skies,
Buz
PS: Just thought of another point about not using the both position. By
burning from either left or right tanks (not both) you can control your
aircraft balance in roll. If you are flying alone (like most of the time) then
you
can burn from the left tank first and keep that side a few gallons below the
right to keep the aircraft balanced in roll.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: another's concern |
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: | Fuel selector valve |
Thanks guys for the explanation of why not both. I guess flying a 172 all
the time, I have always flown with the selector in the both position because
that is what the instructor tells you to do. It makes sense what you are
saying and I will look for the same valve with left-right-off positions.
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Fuel selector valve
Jim,
Nick, Pete, and Doug have answered your fuel valve question, and I agree
totally with what they said. But let me add that I think the Andair line of
fuel valves is probably the best available. So I would definitely recommend
your use one of theirs.
However, why put a valve with a both position on a low wing airplane?
What does that do for you other than give you a potential for a "flame out".
In other words, it add a "trouble mode" that may or may not bite you. So, I
see no operational reason to have a both position - certainly not on a low
wing airplane. When I had a Cessna 170B, I almost never used the both
position. Why, because I wanted to know where my fuel was (how much and in
which tank). When you feed from both at the same time, one side will always
feed faster and then you are guessing how much is in which tank because the
fuel gauges are always inaccurate. We all know that the most accurate fuel
gauge is the one on your wrist.
The Lightning fuel gauges are probably better than most because Pete and
Nick have spent the extra money to provide the kits with the capacitance
type of tank quantity measuring system. They are certainly more accurate
than the float type. Add to that the ability to put a fuel flow system on
the Jabiru and you have a totally separate back up fuel quantity system.
The fuel flow system can be calibrated so that your "totalizer" is very
accurate.
Blue Skies,
Buz
PS: Just thought of another point about not using the both position. By
burning from either left or right tanks (not both) you can control your
aircraft balance in roll. If you are flying alone (like most of the time)
then you can burn from the left tank first and keep that side a few gallons
below the right to keep the aircraft balanced in roll.
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: another's concern |
Hi John,
Again Pete and Nick have already responded, but let me add that getting
information from internet forums is often like listening to guys at the bar
or in a hangar talk session. You have to shift through the BS to find small
morsels of useful information. Most of the talkers are loud mouth boasters
that are trying to come off as the "ace of the base" trying to feel important
rather than earn respect. Yes, there are sometimes some "pearls of wisdom",
but probably more often you have to throw the "bull shit" flag. I am
constantly amazed at some of the totally wrong information that is put out by
people
professing to be knowledgeable.
So I would suggest that the next time someone has something to say about
a Lightning (or any other airplane or subject), just ask:
Have you built a Lightning? No. Well, have you flown a Lightning? No.
Well have you ever really seen a Lightning or a Lightning kit? No. Well, have
you talked to some one that has built or flown a Lightning?
I have used that technique numerous times to separate the wheat from the
chaff. That is how you will get the most accurate information. By the way, the
same applies to those out there that are bad mouthing the Jabiru engines. I
suspect most of them are Rotax dealers seeing their sales decline as the
real word gets out about the Jabiru.
Blue Skies,
Buz
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.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! --
|