Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:15 AM - Re: Building update for kit #49 in Tucson (Kayberg@aol.com)
2. 06:21 AM - Re: Gear legs (nick otterback)
3. 07:48 AM - Re: Building update for kit #49 in Tucson (Sales Email Account)
4. 03:14 PM - Lightning Vs Long-EZ? (Benjamin Smith)
5. 05:08 PM - Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? (N1BZRich@aol.com)
6. 05:16 PM - Re: Building update for kit #49 in Tucson (Kayberg@aol.com)
7. 05:25 PM - Re: Gear legs (Colin J. Kennedy)
8. 05:35 PM - Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? (Charles Dewey)
9. 06:08 PM - Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? (Brian Whittingham)
10. 08:19 PM - Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? (Sales Email Account)
11. 10:14 PM - FW: Re: Frapper Map (Jim Langley)
12. 10:23 PM - Smoke System (Sales Email Account)
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: Building update for kit #49 in Tucson |
In a message dated 2/4/2008 1:10:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
sales@billandruth.net writes:
Thanks for your input. The last kit manual I worked with was that of the
Kitfox model 7 and it was a quick build version also. The manual was quite
explicit.
I suppose there were a number of things that took Kitfox into bankruptcy,
but the rumor I heard was that spent too much money on overhead, including a
fine manufacturing plant.
It is not hard to make a very explicit manual if you are willing to spend a
ton of money on it. By very carefully building a locked design (model 7 as
opposed to model 1) surrounded by talented scribes and a large budget for
printing, it is certainly possible.
It is very difficult to do one with reasonable budget constraints.
This is a very tough business to make money in. In my opinion, the Arion
team have been doing all the right things. The same cannot be said for Kitfox.
Doug Koenigsberg
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
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 |
|
Colin,
I have discussed the matter with the weld shop and they will turn down future
gearlegs some. For yours you will have to sand them as everyone else has. The
weld shop has a gear leg to check these items but he believes that a combination
of a new QC guy and a gear leg which was with in tolarance but slightly undersize
to blame for a run of these legs.
Nick
"Colin J. Kennedy" <cjk129@cox.net> wrote:
I have not fitted my spar box, engine mount or gear legs Nick, so I was able
to try fitting the gear legs to the appropriate holes today, with no impact
of them being attached to the fuselage.
First the bottom weldments: all three went on to within an inch of bottoming
with little effort, so I am guessing that when I clean off the paint, they will
go fully home.
The main gear legs go into the spar box about 2 inches with some effort . The
outside diameter of the top of the main gear legs is 1 3/8". As the tubes are
cut off at an angle, I need to get something deeper inside to measure the inside
diameter and I don't have a good tool for that. I think something more than
removing the paint will have to be done, but this is the next thing I will try.
The nose gear leg will not go into the engine mount at all. The outside diameter
of the top of the nose gear leg is 1 3/8". The inside diameter of the tube
measures at 1 3/8" too, so no clearance. I think something more than removing
the paint will have to be done, but again, this is the next thing I will try.
I am a working at a slower rate as compared to some of the other builders, so
I will not take any drastic measures until you come to a conclusion.
By the way, great engine seminar this weekend! I'm sorry if I was one of the
people keeping you from taking calls! I'm sure we can all work together to resolve
these challenges!
Colin K.
OK
http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nick otterback
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Gear legs
Steve,
I will call teh weld shop this morning...this is not the intended fit of these
parts, and has not been for the first 40 kits or so...
Nick
Steven Sundquist <sttwig@wabroadband.com> wrote:
v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } o\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
} w\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } .shape { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
} @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size:
8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:
12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal
{ FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" }
DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New
Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink
{ COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue;
TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue;
TEXT-DECORATION: underline } PRE { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt;
FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } SPAN.EmailStyle18 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply }
DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } I spent a lot of time sanding both the
spar box tubes and the gear legs to get them to fit and that was before the
spar box was fit in the fuselage. They are a tight fit. I think that all the
welding around the bottom end of the tube in the spar box distorts it a bit.
If I was going to do it again, I would take the legs to a machine shop and have
them put them into a lathe and remove enough to make them fit. The bottom
ends are the same situation. If they are to bottom out in the wheel and brake
weldment, a significant amount needs to be removed there, too.
Steve
Kit # 48
---------------------------------
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nick otterback
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Gear legs
John,
Normally we do not have this much trouble with the legs...make sure the the
hole in the bottom of the fuselage is at the correct angle to allow 1/8" gap
around the leg ...they will bind and go in crooked if they touch just a bit...otherwise
sanding is ok but take your time and do not go to the grinder...
nick
jeynon <jeynon2@verizon.net> wrote:
Is there some trick to inserting the gear legs into the spar box. I've sanded the
paint out of the tube, and loosened the nuts holding the spar box to the fuselage.
I've also done some sanding on the gear leg. I can get it about halfway
in with some difficulty, and back out with more difficulty. I assume the answer
is keep sanding the gear leg until it
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Be a better friend, newshound, and
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
---------------------------------
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: Building update for kit #49 in Tucson |
Hi Doug,
Unfortunately for the Skystar, the last company that produced the Kitfox
before its current owner began operations, there was an accident that
occurred that started them down the road to bankruptcy. There hangar
door was open and a runaway aircraft (under power) slammed into several
of their completed aircraft, including their latest version, and
destroyed them. They had no or very limited insurance nor did the owner
of the runaway and they never recovered from this huge, to them,
financial loss. This was the primary cause of their demise and is very
instructive for those in this industry. A catastrophic loss of
uninsured or underinsured capital assets will ultimately put you out of
business even if you have a good well recognized product and sales are
reasonable. Industry providers (Arion in particular, as they appear to
me to be a startup company) should make very careful note of this fact.
I would hate to see Arion take a hit like this. Companies in this
business often are under capitalized and fail easily as a result. What
is great about Arion is that their kit usually ships with all the unique
kit parts necessary to the kit build that can't be provided by anyone
else (without significant tooling investment). If the company fails,
the new kit owner can produce the aircraft with the existing components
they already have. This is one of the very best reasons to invest in a
kit produced by Arion and one of the primary decision making factors in
my kit purchasing analysis.
Bill in Tucson with kit #49.
Kayberg@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/4/2008 1:10:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> sales@billandruth.net writes:
>
>
> Thanks for your input. The last kit manual I worked with was that
> of the Kitfox model 7 and it was a quick build version also. The
> manual was quite explicit.
>
> I suppose there were a number of things that took Kitfox into
> bankruptcy, but the rumor I heard was that spent too much money on
> overhead, including a fine manufacturing plant.
>
> It is not hard to make a very explicit manual if you are willing to
> spend a ton of money on it. By very carefully building a locked
> design (model 7 as opposed to model 1) surrounded by talented scribes
> and a large budget for printing, it is certainly possible.
>
> It is very difficult to do one with reasonable budget constraints.
>
> This is a very tough business to make money in. In my opinion, the
> Arion team have been doing all the right things. The same cannot be
> said for Kitfox.
>
> Doug Koenigsberg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
> Music.
> <http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002548>
>
>
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: | Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying to get my mind wrapped
around the idea of building an airplane, and I've been lurking on a few lists
for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about 50/50 business/pleasure.
Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of importance:
A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign stall characteristics,
reliability, strong airframe construction with a "crash cage" a plus)
B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low materials cost, simple
construction)
C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to add IFR capability a strong
plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient airframes with good glideslopes -
If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much time before touchdown as
possible.
D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy looking?)
Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have lots in common:
A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design. The Long-EZ is notable in
that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual sense, if the CG is
anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice "crash cage" around the
cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build. (Lightning is considerably
easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper, both seem reasonable)
C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants, and claim amazing
glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both compare nicely with a Cessna
at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding IFR capability.
D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more extreme because of it's
vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the Lightning's more
classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more soothing to new
passengers.
So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on which one I might actually
consider getting behind. I'm interested in first-hand experience, as well
as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
Thanks,
Ben Smith
Private Pilot
--
--
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your
eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long
to return."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
Hi Ben,
Welcome to the list. I think you will find everyone very friendly and
anxious to help.
However, unless my memory is fading, and that could certainly be the
case, I don't think the Long EZ kit is available any more. Rutan took all his
kits off the market when he "went to work" for Beech designing the Starship.
Beech lawyers didn't want anyone working for them that might be liable for
other airplanes. But if you have found a kit from someone that needs to be
completed, than I understand the question.
I have only flown one EZ (several times) many years ago, and it was a
fun airplane that provided good performance and was economical to operate. It
was owned by a fighter pilot buddy and we actually later flew some 1v1 ACM
flights but of course it was not a fair fight because I was in my Pitts.
Anyway, I would highly recommend the Lightning over the EZ for many reasons, but
the one that would be over riding for me would be - landing speed.
-the EZ may be designed to be stall resistant or "hard to stall" but the
landing speed of the EZ is way higher than the Lightning. Therefore, if you
have to land off field you will hit the ground with much more speed and
energy and the potential for damage will be much greater to the airframe and the
pilot. I hate to mention it, but we lost a local EAA member recently when he
tried to land his EZ engine out on a road and hit a small fence. Airplane
and pilot were both a total loss.
-By the way, you can stall the EZ (I have done it) but it has to a high
energy situation where you get the nose really high to start with. This
should never happen in normal operations, so yes it is "stall resistant".
-Another reason I would chose the Lightning is you can easily operate
out of grass strips. Not so the EZ. The takeoff roll and landing roll are
already really long and grass would greatly increase that. I would hate to
guess what the takeoff roll would be at gross on a hot day. The Lightning is
going to be well under 1000' unless you are another Colorado builder. (How's
it
going, Mr. Colorado?)
-As you mentioned, the Lightning is much faster to build, but I want you
to understand we are talking many more years for the EZ. One builder I know
took about 15 to get his in the air. And since Rutan is no longer in the
business, there is really no one to call with questions except other builders,
If you know the builder and trust his knowledge and expertise, that is
great, but if you are asking questions from an unknown resource, then "asker
beware".
As for your A, B, C, and D comparison, I personally would give the
Lightning the edge in all categories. However, depending on which engine you
use
in the EZ, you might cruise a little faster but your fuel burn will certainly
be much higher as well.
I don't know where you live, but the ideal situation is to visit the
guys in Shelbyville, Tennessee, and look over the kit. If you are near
Virginia, I can get you up in N31BZ for sure, and possibly Linda's airplane as
hers
is IFR certified.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
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: Building update for kit #49 in Tucson |
Thanks for the additional info.
My understanding was that they had really ramped up for S-LSA sales....about
2 years too soon. I recall that they had quite a heavy investment in
buildings and tooling.
And the real problem is that either there is no insurance available or it is
prohibitive if you are a manufacturer.
Doug
In a message dated 2/5/2008 10:50:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
sales@billandruth.net writes:
Hi Doug,
Unfortunately for the Skystar, the last company that produced the Kitfox
before its current owner began operations, there was an accident that occurred
that started them down the road to bankruptcy. There hangar door was open and
a runaway aircraft (under power) slammed into several of their completed
aircraft, including their latest version, and destroyed them. They had no or
very limited insurance nor did the owner of the runaway and they never
recovered from this huge, to them, financial loss. This was the primary cause
of
their demise and is very instructive for those in this industry. A
catastrophic loss of uninsured or underinsured capital assets will ultimately
put you
out of business even if you have a good well recognized product and sales are
reasonable. Industry providers (Arion in particular, as they appear to me to
be a startup company) should make very careful note of this fact. I would
hate to see Arion take a hit like this. Companies in this business often are
under capitalized and fail easily as a result. What is great about Arion is
that their kit usually ships with all the unique kit parts necessary to the
kit build that can't be provided by anyone else (without significant tooling
investment). If the company fails, the new kit owner can produce the aircraft
with the existing components they already have. This is one of the very best
reasons to invest in a kit produced by Arion and one of the primary decision
making factors in my kit purchasing analysis.
Bill in Tucson with kit #49.
_Kayberg@aol.com_ (mailto:Kayberg@aol.com) wrote:
In a message dated 2/4/2008 1:10:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_sales@billandruth.net_ (mailto:sales@billandruth.net)
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
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 |
|
Thanks Nick.
I will give it a try.
Colin K.
OK
http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nick
otterback
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:19 AM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Gear legs
Colin,
I have discussed the matter with the weld shop and they will turn down
future gearlegs some. For yours you will have to sand them as everyone
else
has. The weld shop has a gear leg to check these items but he believes
that
a combination of a new QC guy and a gear leg which was with in tolarance
but
slightly undersize to blame for a run of these legs.
Nick
"Colin J. Kennedy" <cjk129@cox.net> wrote:
I have not fitted my spar box, engine mount or gear legs Nick, so I was
able
to try fitting the gear legs to the appropriate holes today, with no
impact
of them being attached to the fuselage.
First the bottom weldments: all three went on to within an inch of
bottoming
with little effort, so I am guessing that when I clean off the paint,
they
will go fully home.
The main gear legs go into the spar box about 2 inches with some effort
.
The outside diameter of the top of the main gear legs is 1 3/8". As the
tubes are cut off at an angle, I need to get something deeper inside to
measure the inside diameter and I don't have a good tool for that. I
think
something more than removing the paint will have to be done, but this is
the
next thing I will try.
The nose gear leg will not go into the engine mount at all. The outside
diameter of the top of the nose gear leg is 1 3/8". The inside diameter
of
the tube measures at 1 3/8" too, so no clearance. I think something more
than removing the paint will have to be done, but again, this is the
next
thing I will try.
I am a working at a slower rate as compared to some of the other
builders,
so I will not take any drastic measures until you come to a conclusion.
By the way, great engine seminar this weekend! I'm sorry if I was one of
the
people keeping you from taking calls! I'm sure we can all work together
to
resolve these challenges!
Colin K.
OK
http://www.mykitlog.com/cojaken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nick
otterback
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Gear legs
Steve,
I will call teh weld shop this morning...this is not the intended fit of
these parts, and has not been for the first 40 kits or so...
Nick
Steven Sundquist <sttwig@wabroadband.com> wrote:
I spent a lot of time sanding both the spar box tubes and the gear legs
to
get them to fit and that was before the spar box was fit in the
fuselage.
They are a tight fit. I think that all the welding around the bottom
end of
the tube in the spar box distorts it a bit. If I was going to do it
again,
I would take the legs to a machine shop and have them put them into a
lathe
and remove enough to make them fit. The bottom ends are the same
situation.
If they are to "bottom out" in the wheel and brake weldment, a
significant
amount needs to be removed there, too.
Steve
Kit # 48
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nick
otterback
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Gear legs
John,
Normally we do not have this much trouble with the legs...make sure the
the
hole in the bottom of the fuselage is at the correct angle to allow 1/8"
gap
around the leg ...they will bind and go in crooked if they touch just a
bit...otherwise sanding is ok but take your time and do not go to the
grinder...
nick
jeynon <jeynon2@verizon.net> wrote:
Is there some trick to inserting the gear legs into the spar box. I've
sanded the paint out of the tube, and loosened the nuts holding the spar
box
to the fuselage. I've also done some sanding on the gear leg. I can get
it
about halfway in with some difficulty, and back out with more
difficulty. I
assume the answer is keep sanding the gear leg until it
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
Benjamin-
Hope you consider 2 things: safety and re-sale. A
Lightning with a BRS system is safer than any plane
without a chute. A Long-EZ doesn't take a chute.
Re-sale: Cirrus has set the standard in re-sale
leadership due mostly to the CAPS whole airframe
parachute (they are also #1 in new plane sales). The
Lightning system has been endorsed and inspected by
BRS engineer Brent Ackley, as well as the rest of
their team, as being a top-notch install. The Long-EZ
is a cool plane, but so is the Lightning. I also
strongly considered the Velocity as well as the
Long-EZ b4 deciding on the Lightning. Everything about
the Lightning comes out ahead if you do the research
and do a line-by-line comparison with most other
comprable aircraft out there. Good luck with your
search.
Charles Dewey
-- Benjamin Smith <pilot@benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
> <pilot@benjamindsmith.com>
>
> I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
> to get my mind wrapped
> around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
> been lurking on a few lists
> for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about
> 50/50 business/pleasure.
> Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
> importance:
>
> A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
> stall characteristics,
> reliability, strong airframe construction with a
> "crash cage" a plus)
>
> B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low
> materials cost, simple
> construction)
>
> C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
> add IFR capability a strong
> plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
> airframes with good glideslopes -
> If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much
> time before touchdown as
> possible.
>
> D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
> looking?)
>
> Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have
> lots in common:
>
> A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
> The Long-EZ is notable in
> that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
> sense, if the CG is
> anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
> "crash cage" around the
> cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
>
> B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
> (Lightning is considerably
> easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper,
> both seem reasonable)
>
> C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
> and claim amazing
> glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both
> compare nicely with a Cessna
> at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding
> IFR capability.
>
> D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
> extreme because of it's
> vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
> Lightning's more
> classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more
> soothing to new
> passengers.
>
> So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
> which one I might actually
> consider getting behind. I'm interested in
> first-hand experience, as well
> as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben Smith
> Private Pilot
> --
> --
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever
> walk the earth with your
> eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
> there you will always long
> to return."
> -- Leonardo da Vinci
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>
> Forums!
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
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: | Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
Another big difference is that a Lightning lands just like any other tricyc
le gear airplane, albeit a big slower than most. I find that the Long EZ i
s favored by jet pilots, largely due to a higher landing speed and flying a
set angle of attack all the way to touchdown. You don't really flare an E
Z on landing. I imagine this is largely the case with any canard airplane.
I personally like the looks and performance of an EZ, but my money is sti
ll on the Lightning for the mission that you outlined. By the way Buz and
Colorado dude, I flew a Lightning, with 2 people and some baggage out of Ca
rlsbad NM, which I think is like 4,600 feet above sea level or so, and it w
as 105 degrees actual temp out and we may have went past 1,000 foot on the
takeoff, but just barely if.
If you're just really set on the looks of a canard then go one up and try t
o find one of the Berkut kits that is around, if you can find it. It can h
ave a TSIO 550 install and do around 300mph. Of course you're talking abou
t a fast landing speed, much more cost on insurance due to speed, power, an
d retractable gear, and it drinks a lot of fuel, but it's also like a large
r version of the Long EZ. Brian W.> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:33:06 -0800>
From: cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Lightning Vs Long-
EZ?> To: lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List message posted
by: Charles Dewey <cdewey6969@yahoo.com>> > Benjamin- > Hope you consider 2
things: safety and re-sale. A> Lightning with a BRS system is safer than a
ny plane> without a chute. A Long-EZ doesn't take a chute.> Re-sale: Cirrus
has set the standard in re-sale> leadership due mostly to the CAPS whole a
irframe> parachute (they are also #1 in new plane sales). The> Lightning sy
stem has been endorsed and inspected by> BRS engineer Brent Ackley, as well
as the rest of> their team, as being a top-notch install. The Long-EZ> is
a cool plane, but so is the Lightning. I also> strongly considered the Velo
city as well as the> Long-EZ b4 deciding on the Lightning. Everything about
> the Lightning comes out ahead if you do the research> and do a line-by-li
ne comparison with most other> comprable aircraft out there. Good luck with
your> search.> Charles Dewey> > > -- Benjamin Smith <pilot@benjamindsmith.
ilot@benjamindsmith.com>> > > > I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast,
trying> > to get my mind wrapped > > around the idea of building an airpla
ne, and I've> > been lurking on a few lists > > for a while. I'm a software
engineer, and fly about> > 50/50 business/pleasure. > > Towards this end,
I'm looking for, in order of> > importance: > > > > A) Safe, (tame handling
characteristics, benign> > stall characteristics, > > reliability, strong
airframe construction with a> > "crash cage" a plus) > > > > B) Cheap & Eas
y to build, (quality instructions, low> > materials cost, simple > > constr
uction) > > > > C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to> > add IF
R capability a strong > > plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient> > ai
rframes with good glideslopes - > > If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I
want as much> > time before touchdown as > > possible.> > > > D) Cool looks
. (who doesn't want something sexy> > looking?) > > > > Here's my analysis
of these two aircraft, they have> > lots in common: > > > > A) Both claim s
afety as a primary goal in design.> > The Long-EZ is notable in > > that it
's nearly impossible to stall in the usual> > sense, if the CG is > > anywh
ere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice> > "crash cage" around the >
> cockpit, along with a very low stall speed. > > > > B) Both are either Ch
eap and/or easy to build.> > (Lightning is considerably > > easier to build
, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper,> > both seem reasonable) > > > > C) Both
are mighty fast given modest powerplants,> > and claim amazing > > glidesl
opes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both> > compare nicely with a Cessna >
> at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding> > IFR capability. >
> > > D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more> > extreme because of
it's > > vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the> > Lightning's mo
re > > classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more> > soothing to
new > > passengers. > > > > So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
> > which one I might actually > > consider getting behind. I'm interested
in> > first-hand experience, as well > > as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
> > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben Smith > > Private Pilot> > -- > > --> > "When
once you have tasted flight, you will forever> > walk the earth with your >
> eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and> > there you will alwa
ys long > > to return." > > -- Leonardo da Vinci> > > > -- > > This message
has been scanned for viruses and> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and
is> > believed to be clean.> > > > > >> > browse> > Un/Subscription,> > FAQ
,> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List> >> > Forums!> >> >
Admin.> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? >
===> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get yo
ur "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
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: Lightning Vs Long-EZ? |
Benjamin,
One of the issues one should consider with a pusher configuration is the
impact of stones and other objects kicked up by the nose wheel tire on
the propellor. This is a factor and quite a while ago I was
investigating a purchase of a Long-EZ and the owner confided in me that
it came with an extra prop to replace the one that had been damaged due
to this problem.
Another reason to pursue the Lightning as a purchase is the dynamic
on-going effort to improve and enhance the design. Arion is not resting
on its laurels as attested to by its decision to offer improvements and
enhancements to the kit. Larger wing tanks, much improved panel along
with a much simpler canopy frame are a couple of good examples of their
recent efforts in this area. New wing tips are in the works and a
longer wing and different ailerons to compliment the new wing design
appear to be the next step. The Long-EZ is an interesting design but
has no real internal baggage carrying capacity which limits cross
country capability severely in my mind. That's not the case with the
Lightning. You can easily carry a set skies or fishing poles in a
modified baggage compartment inside a Lightning but, never in a Long-EZ.
Also, consider that if you build it you will be able to maintain it and
will get it off the ground much faster than building a Long-EZ.
Finally, where will you obtain tech support for your Long-EZ build?
Hope this info proves to be helpful. The problem in getting advice from
a Lightning owner is that we are all biased toward ownership of the
Lightning so you should consider that fact in your decision making
process as well.
Bill in Tucson
Charles Dewey wrote:
>
>Benjamin-
> Hope you consider 2 things: safety and re-sale. A
>Lightning with a BRS system is safer than any plane
>without a chute. A Long-EZ doesn't take a chute.
>Re-sale: Cirrus has set the standard in re-sale
>leadership due mostly to the CAPS whole airframe
>parachute (they are also #1 in new plane sales). The
>Lightning system has been endorsed and inspected by
>BRS engineer Brent Ackley, as well as the rest of
>their team, as being a top-notch install. The Long-EZ
>is a cool plane, but so is the Lightning. I also
>strongly considered the Velocity as well as the
>Long-EZ b4 deciding on the Lightning. Everything about
>the Lightning comes out ahead if you do the research
>and do a line-by-line comparison with most other
>comprable aircraft out there. Good luck with your
>search.
> Charles Dewey
>
>
>-- Benjamin Smith <pilot@benjamindsmith.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>><pilot@benjamindsmith.com>
>>
>>I'm a prospective plane builder/enthusiast, trying
>>to get my mind wrapped
>>around the idea of building an airplane, and I've
>>been lurking on a few lists
>>for a while. I'm a software engineer, and fly about
>>50/50 business/pleasure.
>>Towards this end, I'm looking for, in order of
>>importance:
>>
>>A) Safe, (tame handling characteristics, benign
>>stall characteristics,
>>reliability, strong airframe construction with a
>>"crash cage" a plus)
>>
>>B) Cheap & Easy to build, (quality instructions, low
>>materials cost, simple
>>construction)
>>
>>C) Capability: The faster, the better. Ability to
>>add IFR capability a strong
>>plus. I fly to get places. I like efficient
>>airframes with good glideslopes -
>>If I have to "dead stick" a landing, I want as much
>>time before touchdown as
>>possible.
>>
>>D) Cool looks. (who doesn't want something sexy
>>looking?)
>>
>>Here's my analysis of these two aircraft, they have
>>lots in common:
>>
>>A) Both claim safety as a primary goal in design.
>>The Long-EZ is notable in
>>that it's nearly impossible to stall in the usual
>>sense, if the CG is
>>anywhere near reasonable. The Lightning has a nice
>>"crash cage" around the
>>cockpit, along with a very low stall speed.
>>
>>B) Both are either Cheap and/or easy to build.
>>(Lightning is considerably
>>easier to build, Long-EZ is considerably cheaper,
>>both seem reasonable)
>>
>>C) Both are mighty fast given modest powerplants,
>>and claim amazing
>>glideslopes. Lightning 17:1, Long EZ 18:1. Both
>>compare nicely with a Cessna
>>at 7:1!!!! Both seem like a good platform for adding
>>IFR capability.
>>
>>D) Both look way cool. The Long-EZ looks more
>>extreme because of it's
>>vagely "Star Wars X-wing fighter" motif, but the
>>Lightning's more
>>classic "this is an airplane" look may be a bit more
>>soothing to new
>>passengers.
>>
>>So, I have no clear winner. I'm up for grabs on
>>which one I might actually
>>consider getting behind. I'm interested in
>>first-hand experience, as well
>>as "friend-of-a-friend" stories...
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Ben Smith
>>Private Pilot
>>--
>>--
>>"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever
>>walk the earth with your
>>eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and
>>there you will always long
>>to return."
>>-- Leonardo da Vinci
>>
>>--
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>>
>>browse
>>Un/Subscription,
>>FAQ,
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
>>
>>Forums!
>>
>>Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hey all!
The Lightning Frapper map is filling up! Nice to see so many Lightning kits
all around the world! Keep it coming!
http://www.frappr.com/?a=constellation_map
<http://www.frappr.com/?a=constellation_map&mapid=137439272225>
&mapid=137439272225
Here are a few tips for entering your information.
There are two color pins, (I can add more if needed)
- Use yellow if you are a customer
- Use red if you are a dealer/distributor
Use the "shoutout" field to describe yourself, or add your web address.
For instance
Green Landings Flight Center
<http://www.greenlandings.com> www.greenlandings.com
(Telephone number)
The map is not perfect and has some bugs, but it IS a great way to us to see
at a glance where everyone is, and for new customers to gather information
about distributors and customers.
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 |
|
Hi All,
I would like to install a smoke system in my Lightning. Is this
feasible, has it been done and where do you get the hardware to make
this work?
I have been looking at this web site for a system and have made
inquiries about their system: http://www.skysmoke.com/contact.htm
Bill in Tucson
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! --
|