Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

another's concern

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

deuskid

Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 26
Location: St Louis, MO

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:33 am Post 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:



 	  Quote: 	
		  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

pequeajim

Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 708
Location: New Holland, PA

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: 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(at)gmail.com (empire.john(at)gmail.com)> wrote: [quote]--> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" <empire.john(at)gmail.com  (empire.john(at)gmail.com)>



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: 

 	  Quote: 	
		   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

  [quote][b]

vettin74(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: 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(at)gmail.com> wrote:

  [quote]--> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" 



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

 	  Quote: 	
		   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, [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48252/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC] mobile search  that gives answers[/url], not web links.    [quote][b]

pete(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:32 am Post 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



--

pequeajim

Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 708
Location: New Holland, PA

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: 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(at)yahoo.com (vettin74(at)yahoo.com)> wrote: [quote] 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(at)gmail.com (empire.john(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		  --> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" 



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 

 	  Quote: 	
		   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, [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48252/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC]mobile search that gives answers [/url], not web links.  	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com



	
	
[b]

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: another's concern

See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: 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 AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

deuskid

Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 26
Location: St Louis, MO

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: Thanks - good points

Thanks Guys for the good posts.



This was on a canard forum [so the thinking is already 'out of the box'] and alternative engines are actively promoted [traditional engine mindset is accepted but no one has drunk the kool-aid].  



I agree he/she didn't know what they were suggesting and the 'have you seen, flown' argument is a good one 'cept - neither have I.



He/she is an engineer and probably a bit more analytical and cautious than many.  Also, his/her 'wish list' is probably made of the material: unobtainium.  I've seen many posts by this individual and they are a flying pilot w/ an older certified a/c in northern 1/2 Europe trying to identify the 'perfect' replacement.  He/she is not a troller or troublemaker.



I wouldn't take offense at his/her observations but I would like as much information as possible to alay fears and misconceptions to help him/her individually and just make sure the lightning is accurately portraited in general.  Good information is the best way to keep misperceptions like this from being perpetuated. 



His/her questions/concerns were sincere even if the conclusions are poor - based upon presumption and misinformation.



Give him/her the benefit of the doubt and give me all the information needed so that I can link him/her right here and let them become better informed.  That is the best answer for everyone, him/her and the Lightning group.



This thread could be quite useful because this mindset will arise again and again and a solid explanation easily linked would be a great place for all of us to refer 'doubters'.



John

pequeajim

Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 708
Location: New Holland, PA

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: another's concern

John:



The problem is that people make strong statements about things that they

have never seen or touched.  If someone told me that you were a rocket

scientist, and I responded with several "assumptions" not based on my

experience with you, especially with strong statements using words like

"crap" and insinuating poor expertise, I'm sure you would be offended.



I questioned some things with the Lightning when I first saw it.  These were

things that I did not understand about composites and the list quickly

brought me up to date with a good understanding.  The people on this list

are very helpful, but when you quote someone who obviously shouldn't even be

granted a listen, then it makes it hard for people to not get offended and

help you.



Pete and the others at Arion/JabiruUSA have endured this before and I'm

amazed at their durability.  I guess that's why their aircraft are so

robust, because they are too.



One step at a time and I am sure others on the list would be happy to help.

Use your own judgment in deciding if the Lightning is right for you.  You

must be impressed if you recommended it as a possibility in the first place.



This list is one of the reasons that I purchased a Lightning in the first

place.  It took me six months of research to get to the point of writing the

check.



Now I'm happy!



--

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: another's concern

In a message dated 5/26/2007 9:40:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  empire.john(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

This    was on a canard forum [so the thinking is already 'out of the box'] and    alternative engines are actively promoted [traditional engine mindset is    accepted but no one has drunk the kool-aid].   

	


 

 Not so sure I agree.  I think they are firmly locked into a box.   I was on their lists, both canard aviators and alternitive engines, for some  time.

  

 Burt Rutan gave the canard a new life that turned out to be short  lived.  Ask Beech how their Starship turned out.  Or remember  Larry Heuberger's Stinger or his turboprop hauler, the OMAC 1?  There is a  reason most airplanes dont lead with their tail.  

  

 I would suggest that the most honorable Mr. Rutan made his largest  contribution to aviation in the form of advancing moldless and later molded  glass composite structures.  It is precisely that effort that led to the  Lancair and now the Lightning.   Lighter weight and better  aerodynamics make for faster airplanes that carry more.

  

 Oh, I understand the efficiency of  a canard and winglets.  They  are a must for flying around the world on one tank of gas.  But puting the  tail where it can do the most good, like pitch control at low speeds, means we  have near the speeds of a glass-backwards plane but can land 20 mph  slower.

  

 I sold my Long-Eze projeect when it finally dawned on me that no  matter what I did, I could not hit the ground any slower than 60 mph.  And,  no matter what I did, I could not operate a canard out of a 1500 foot grass  strip.   

  

 I am a great fan of alternitive engines.....I am still waiting for someone  to actually produce one that is affordable and reliable.   I do like  the Jabiru, but reality is that I can build a Lycoming from parts for less than  half the price....it will just weigh 60 lbs more...which is still lighter than  most alternitives.

  

 If you have any background in mechanics at all, you will fall in love  with a Jabiru, particularly if you see one disassembled.  Makes all  the sense in the world.  Just costs too damn much!!!...until you price a  912 Rotax!!!

  

 Doug Koenigsberg



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

JamesL(at)Lugoj.com
Guest

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: another's concern

Kayberg(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I do like the Jabiru, but reality is that I can build a Lycoming from

 parts for less than half the price....


	


What's a realistic amount of time needed to assemble and test such an

engine? For example, if half the price of a Jabiru is, say, $7,000,

and you take 280 hours to assemble a comparable Lycoming from $7,000

worth of parts then if you value your time at more than $25/hour then

you are better off buying an assembled engine for $14,000.



Generally the lower the engine cost, the less advantage there is in

building one from parts. In this case your construction of a heavier

engine also eats into your plane's payload capacity.



Of course if you are retired and/or enjoy the process itself then

building an engine from parts may be just the ticket. That assumes of

course that one accepts that the cost of parts adds up to less then

a factory assembled engine. I know that is not generally the case in

the automotive engine world. I'd like to see proof that one can buy

all the parts to build a Lycoming that adds up to a cost lower than a

factory assembled engine.

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: another's concern

Thanks for thinking about this, James. I did make a couple of  assumptions.

  

 1) That if you could build an airplane, you could build an engine....with  some help, of course.  They are actually rather simple in construction.  There is a learning curve to some of the details of course.

  

 2)  That the engine would be assembled from used parts that may  not meet certified standards.  For example, some crankshaft cracks are  acceptable for an experimental engine but none for a certified.  Obviously  some cracks are acceptable only for airboats!!  As you might expect, there  is a substantial difference in price between airboat and certified.

  

 I have an O-290-G case bored to accept O-320 cylinders, using a O-235  crankshaft with backing plates,  mechanical lifters, Bendix mags, carb,  manifold, new pistons and rings, etc.  I picked it up on Barnstormers  dissassembled for $1,900.    My plan is to spend about 30 hours  assembling it,  another $1,000 on parts and will pay an engine shop another  $1,000 to coach me on assembling.   I will build it for low  horsepower, 130-150, so I can feel comfortable burning auto gas.    Since most planes only fly 100 hours a year or less, I think I can get 10 years  out of it with no problem.  Hence my statements about a less than half  price engine.

  

 You are correct about engine weight,  I would not even dream of puting  it in a Lightning. I am working on a Witman Buttercup

  

 In my opinion, for the money,  the Lightning is the best  combination of engine and airframe out there today.  It offers the best  combination of high and low speeds along with good handling and fuel  efficiency.   That is why I am a part owner in our demo plane at Green  Landings.   Being a scrooge, I just hate that it costs so  much.   Yes it is worth it and I am not getting any younger,   but...... 

  

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

 In a message dated 5/26/2007 7:59:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  JamesL(at)Lugoj.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

What's a realistic amount of time needed to assemble and test such    an

engine? For example, if half the price of a Jabiru is, say,    $7,000,

and you take 280 hours to assemble a comparable Lycoming from    $7,000

worth of parts then if you value your time at more than $25/hour    then

you are better off buying an assembled engine for    $14,000.



Generally the lower the engine cost, the less advantage there    is in

building one from parts. In this case your construction of a    heavier

engine also eats into your plane's payload capacity.



Of    course if you are retired and/or enjoy the process itself then

building an    engine from parts may be just the ticket. That assumes of

course that one    accepts that the cost of parts adds up to less then

a factory assembled    engine. I know that is not generally the case in

the automotive engine    world. I'd like to see proof that one can buy

all the parts to build a    Lycoming that adds up to a cost lower than a

factory assembled    engine.

	


 

  



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum