Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Qualith of build and durability?

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

Qualith of build and durability?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

In a message dated 2/3/2007 2:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,  georgiemun(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

Let    me ask a couple of questions again, please take no offense to what I am    asking.



1. Does the Lightning use the same wing spar design as the    Esqual?



2. Why does the carbon fiber stop at the root of the wing and    does not continue through to the tip of the spar?  Is there a reason for    this?



3. What is the third material in the spar (kind of looks like    wood)?



4. Has there been improvements in the finish since the web site    pictures were taken?



5. I know that there has been load testing    performed on the wing, but has this also been performed for load over    time?  Some times the mixing of glass and carbon fiber does not rear it's    ugly head right away.  What kind of testing is performed to verify the    integrity over many hours of use?



	


 

  

 Since you are advocating the taking of no offense, I will assume you will  do likewise.  Some of us are a little sensitive when we offer personal  testimony as to the veracity of something and the reader chooses to reject  it.  I will assume you are new to composites and trust you will not be  offended by my explanations.

  

 1) As I said before, there is no carbon fiber used in a Lightning  airframe.  So all of your questions that relate to carbon fiber are moot. I  realize you see a black color, but that is a pigment, not carbon.  Carbon  fiber is very expensive and difficult to work with.   As I understand  it , there was a carbon fiber option for the Esqual, but the weight savings  hardly justified the load it lifted from the purchasers bank account.

  

 2) The substance that looks like wood is foam, although wood is used at one  point in the spar (it carries little load)  As you may know, wood and foam  mostly act as spacers for the fiber structure and contribute little to the  strength.  It is the fibers themselves that have the strength.

  

 3) As I also said before, WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU SEE IN THE PICTURES, the  finish on the parts is considered to be first rate.  Since I have done my  time sanding epoxy, I think I know what I am talking about.  When body shop  guys, particularly Corvette people, tell me the finish is great, I tend to  believe them.  If you are anywhere near Martinsburg, WV,  come and see  us.  You can see for yourself.  Check www.greenlandings.com for directions and  more information.  Oh, yeah, the latest website could use better  spelling and diction, but that is my fault.  We just needed to get the info  up,  I will adjust it later.

  

 I dont know if the spar is the same as the Esqual. I doubt if anyone  does.  Unless someone were to peel one of each apart and compare them, it  would be difficult to say for certain.  However spar design in this type of  aircraft is well known from such planes as the Glasairs, Lancairs,   Pulsar's, etc.    Also well known is how to test  them.   When you looked on the website and noticed all the sandbags  stacked on the wing and the claim that it exceeded the strength of 95% of the  General Aviation aircraft flying today, I should think you would be  impressed.

  

 The only sure way to verify integrety over many hours of use is to use it  for many hours!!   As you may also know,  epoxys have a half  life, typically over 20 years.  So the wings will actually be getting  stronger for a lenthy period of time before they begin to get  weaker.   The only real enimy of epoxy is ultraviolet, although heat  can soften the material and certain organic solvents can degrade the  surface.  So there is no real testing other than heat, some solvents and  ultraviolet that will indicate longevity.    Testing samples of  epoxy mixes used during construction is standard in the industry and will  easily reveal substandard batches.   If you have a good design,  assemble it identically each time and test your epoxies, it is quite reasonable  to expect long life with a good ultraviolet shield.

  

 I hope this helps.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

  

  [quote][b]

pequeajim

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

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Georgie:  

   

Your questions are valid and to be honest, I asked the same kind of questions when first looking at the Lightning.  To your question about carbon fiber in the wing spar, yes, it does look like carbon fiber in there and I am not really sure myself the purpose behind it inside the wing as opposed to extending it out to the end of the spar.  The pic I attached shows the fiber strands extending just beyond the wing root.  I believe that Arion uses CF in the airframe around the dash and attach points for the wings.  This is certainly a logical place to put it and would add rigidity.  In the 2nd pic I have attached you can see this as well as a black stripe down the middle of the floor where the two fuse halves join together, as well as around the firewall.  I don’t know if that is CF or something else.  

   

As for the Lightning being a redesign of the Esqual, no, I believe they took everything that they knew about the Esqual and may have started from scratch.  I would think that the aircraft are probably very similar since Buz I believe is flying an Esqual with Lightning wings?  (Buz would need to confirm this).    

   

I think your question was leading to the point that if there are so many Esquals flying without mishap and the Lightning’s basic design is based on the Esqual, then this adds proof to the robustness of the Lightning design.  I would agree with that, but the designers would need to confirm that statement regarding design.  

   

As far as the finish, I have no issues with how the aircraft parts are shipped to the dealers.  You will need to do some sanding and body work, but overall, they are nicely done.  Who ever built a Glasair, or Lancair without sanding?  

   

Something else that you have not mentioned.  This aircraft flies behind the Jabiru 3300.  What a great little engine!  Direct drive, standard auto plugs, easy to get as everything, (see attached pic).  Beautiful!  

   

I agree with Doug.  Take a hike down to Green Landings and see for yourself.  It did wonders for my confidence, and went a LONG way towards making up my mind to buy a Lightning.  In fact, if you would like to go down together some time, I will ride with you.  It’s worth another trip.  

   

Jim!

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

George,

    Before you come on the scene several were saying that they wanted 

updated and more pics on the website.  Pete said that that is in the works, 

but it is difficult since they're in a time crunch and trying to help 

builders finish their planes.  So I have been posting some pics.  Doug has 

done a good job of trying to answer your questions.



Again, let me say welcome to the site and to try not to be offended.  As 

Doug implied this is a Lightning enthusiast site.  Also try to understand 

that folks like Doug at Green Landings have taken on the Lightning as a 

builder assist and sales rep.  These aren't guys that were hired by the guys 

at Shelbyville, but rather he took it on to try to sale planes and make 

money for his family.  I doubt he'd take on a project plane that wasn't 

something of quality, although I've admitedly never met him.  There are 

several Lightning owners on here, several that are interested, and several 

that are just want to owners like myself.  I don't work for the company, but 

have flown the Lightnings and try to keep the Lightning list flowing with 

present happenings at SYI.  Buz has flown the prototype to do an indipendent 

flight test for verifying numbers.  Earl has done some flight testing with 

the light sport compliant LIghtnings.  The guys at Shelbyville are way too 

busy to keep track of all of the traffic that is on the Lightning List.  So 

usually owners/builders/pilots try to share what information they have on 

different subjects.  As far as I know nobody that has bought one has been 

dissappointed although several have been pleasently surprised.



I can post some pics of current planes on here if you'd like.  The quality 

is as good as any that I've seen, and better than most.  I can also send you 

by private email some of the flight test data so that you can go over it 

data point by point if you are still in doubt of the performance figures.  I 

believe that the numbers are pretty incredible.  In fact, I doubt there's 

any other production aircraft with the same fuel burns and performance.  I 

am working on doing some indipendent flight testing for some speed mods 

right now and after I finish that I can give you those numbers if you want.



Hope to see you around.  If you get a chance to fly the plane and look it 

over thoroughly I think that you'll come around and joing the "Lightning 

Legion."  Brian W.



_________________________________________________________________

Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy 

Awards®   http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Buz's plane is an Esqual with Esqual wings.  His plane does have a Lightning 

cowling (modified for the shorter snout on the Esqual, and it has Lightning 

gear leg fairings and wheels and wheel fairings.  This alone made his plane 

about 50mph faster!  The overall shape of the planes is similar but it is a 

different plane.  Brian W.



_________________________________________________________________

Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live 

Spaces

georgiemun

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 10
Location: New Hope, PA

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Qualith of build and durability?

Doug:



No, I don't take offense, how can I?  I'm just learning like many others on here.  I appreciate your answers, however, I think that maybe Nick?  would be better suited to answering the questions about the use of carbon fiber in the Lightning.



Jim:



Thanks for the pics, they clear up some questions in my mind.  I may take you up on that trip down to Green Landings.  They sound like a good bunch of guys and if I was driving, you would be right on the way down.



Brian:



Thanks for the offer.  I did see your pics posted on the Matronics forum and they actually rekindled my interest in the aircraft, thanks again.



Nick:  



I forgot to answer your question as to where the post was.  It was on the Homebuilt Airplanes forums  www.homebuiltairplanes.com

pequeajim

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

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Thanks for the clarification...



--

vettin74(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

The fellow who posted the before metioned Forwarded thread is on a site called www.homebuiltairplanes.com.  name is ORION and is the site moderator....read some if the other posts if you will and make your own conclusions...

   

  Nick



George SMith <georgiemun(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

  [quote]          I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been surfing around the forums for information on the aircraft.  Since it is so new, it is difficult to find many  people who have experience with it.  My concern is that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the line.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

   

  In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking questions about the Lightning and one gentleman’s thoughts on the aircraft after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.



   

  An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show quite a  bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235 or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar enough to at least raise an eyebrow.



They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together. It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.



But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is: Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance shows that the molded  part came out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.



Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of structure is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes  each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.



From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a good presentation and certainly not something that most companies would want to use as a demonstration of their skills.



Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd question  that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.



In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.



This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so I did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear similar opinions.  I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is constructed in this manner?  Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the wing and not out to the end of the spar.  Is there a design consideration in this?  The points about the finish are not really that big a concern to me.  While true that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe this because their products are delivered in a more complete state, (those companies having the opportunity to  do more finishing on their end), I don't mind a little body work now and then.

   

  Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a redesign of the Esqual?  Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar composition as the Lightning.  If so, this would lend some validation to the fact that there must be several of those flying and no real problems to speak of?

   

  Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or design, so do not take offense.  I am just searching for some answers to questions that have been raised about the design and finish before I make  TV dinner still cooling?

[url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49979/*http://tv.yahoo.com/]Check out "Tonight's Picks"[/url] on Yahoo! TV. [quote][b]

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Nick,

   George wants an affirmation that there is not any carbon fiber in the 

Lightning from you.  You would be the person to know.  Brian W.



_________________________________________________________________

Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.

georgiemun

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 10
Location: New Hope, PA

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Qualith of build and durability?

 	  dashvii(at)hotmail.com wrote: 	
		  Nick,

   George wants an affirmation that there is not any carbon fiber in the 

Lightning from you.  You would be the person to know.  Brian W.



	




I really would like to know what the airframe and wing spar are made of?



Can you help me Nick?

pete(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Hi All,  

   

The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really make me shake my head.  The quote from the moderator of the www.homebuiltairplanes.com web site is another one of those.  It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a self proclaimed “expert” and then makes statements based on assumptions about photos posted on another site.  

   

Sloppy?  He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin.  If he even had a cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.  He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them disappear.  The material was not bunched up.  Nor was it separated from the tool.  He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid assumptions.  

   

Second, he talks about the spar.  He says that the combination of glass and carbon is “not recommended”.  Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar, Boeing, and others.  Maybe they will change their wing construction to comply with this “expert”.  If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can change their wing before the first of the “New Generation” aircraft are sold!  He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it extends on out the spar.  You just can’t see it in the photo.  Again, an “expert” making assumptions about items he can’t even see in a photo.  

   

He questions the spar strength?  On what basis?  Maybe his vast knowledge of composites?  We tested that wing  to 11 G positive.  Then we tested it to 11 G negative.  Then in the high speed stall configuration.  Photos of the test are on the web site.  95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex, Zenith, and most others.  

   

Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an “analysis program” and he would prefer to see “[i]something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven”.  [/i][i]Again he’s assuming we are not being forthright with our performance numbers.  Well, those who know us and build with us know that we have not used “analysis programs” in the development of this aircraft.  We built it the way we thought it should be built based on our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt aircraft.  We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and reported the performance we saw.  We prove it again every week by flying beside Vans RV-6 & 7’s and finding that we are faster when flown in the economy cruise mode.  The RV’s will go faster if the pilots push the throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster using our 5.5 gph.  We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get back to the airport and fly a std pattern!  Maybe we’ll call that the Turkey Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.[/i]  

[i] [/i]  

[i]To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about,  we are encouraged by what they say about our kit.  We will get better yet as this year goes by and you can rest assured that we won’t be reporting performance we don’t see.[/i]  

[i] [/i]  

[i]Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can’t always believe the info posted on the net.  Too often list members make observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of  expertise.  Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still……  Call me old fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility to have some idea of what they are talking about.[/i]  

[i] [/i]  

[i]Pete[/i]  

   

         

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith

 Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Qualith of build and durability?  

  

       

I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been surfing around the forums for information on the aircraft.  Since it is so new, it is difficult to find many people who have experience with it.  My concern is that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the line.  

   

In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking questions about the Lightning and one gentleman’s thoughts on the aircraft after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.  

    

   

    

[i]An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235 or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar enough to at least raise an eyebrow.[/i]

 

 [i][i]They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together. It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.[/i]

 

 [i]But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is: Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.[/i]

 

 [i]Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of structure is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.[/i]

 

 [i]From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a good presentation and certainly not something that most companies would want to use as a demonstration of their skills.[/i]

 

 [i]Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.[/i]

 

 [i]In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.[/i][/i]

 

 This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so I did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear similar opinions.  I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is constructed in this manner?  Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the wing and not out to the end of the spar.  Is there a design consideration in this?  The points about the finish are not really that big a concern to me.  While true that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe this because their products are delivered in a more complete state, (those companies having the opportunity to do more finishing on their end), I don't mind a little body work now and then.  

    

   

    

Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a redesign of the Esqual?  Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar composition as the Lightning.  If so, this would lend some validation to the fact that there must be several of those flying and no real problems to speak of?  

    

   

    

Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or design, so do not take offense.  I am just searching for some answers to questions that have been raised about the design and finish before I make the decision to put down my money.  

    

   

    

Thanks for any help that you can provide.  

    

   

    

Georgie  

  

  

       

  

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4

        [quote][b]

jimandmary(at)fastmail.us
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Seems like it would be good if you  (or Nick) put your  rebuttal on the homebuiltairplanes.com website under the same thread as the  comments were made.  Letting it stand unchallenged there only seems to give  it a sense of legitimacy.  Perhaps some of the other happy Lightning owners  could also respond there.  However, I realize time is an issue so if you  can't it's understandable but unfortunate.

  

 Jim  Young

 



 [quote]         From:    owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of    Pete

Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:53 PM

To:    lightning-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Qualith of    build and durability?

   

      

Hi    All,   

    

The internet is a    great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really make me shake my    head.  The quote from the moderator of the www.homebuiltairplanes.com web    site is another one of those.  It always amazes me when someone sets    himself up as a self proclaimed “expert” and then makes statements based on    assumptions about photos posted on another site.   

    

Sloppy?  He    first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin.  If he even had a cursory    knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not wrinkles    but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.  He    would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them    disappear.  The material was not bunched up.  Nor was it separated    from the tool.  He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make    valid assumptions.   

    

Second, he talks    about the spar.  He says that the combination of glass and carbon is “not    recommended”.  Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar, Boeing, and    others.  Maybe they will change their wing construction to comply with    this “expert”.  If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can change their    wing before the first of the “New Generation” aircraft are sold!  He    states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it extends on    out the spar.  You just can’t see it in the photo.  Again, an    “expert” making assumptions about items he can’t even see in a    photo.   

    

He questions the spar    strength?  On what basis?  Maybe his vast knowledge of    composites?  We tested that wing  to 11 G positive.  Then we    tested it to 11 G negative.  Then in the high speed stall    configuration.  Photos of the test are on the web site.  95% of all    aircraft wings in use today would not hold up to our test including Cessna,    Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex, Zenith, and most    others.   

    

Finally, he doubts    our performance numbers and thinks they are from an “analysis program” and he    would prefer to see “[i]something that's a bit more accurate and flight    proven”.  [/i][i]Again    he’s assuming we are not being forthright with our performance numbers.     Well, those who know us and build with us know that we have not used “analysis    programs” in the development of this aircraft.  We built it the way we    thought it should be built based on our experience over the last nearly 20    years building dozens of homebuilt aircraft.  We put our own butt on the    line and went out and flew it and reported the performance we saw.  We    prove it again every week by flying beside Vans RV-6 & 7’s and finding    that we are faster when flown in the economy cruise mode.  The RV’s will    go faster if the pilots push the throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at    their 9.5 gph rate we are faster using our 5.5 gph.  We even got to    report first hand our glide ratio when Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the    spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away from the airport at 2500 ft above    the ground and he had enough glide to get back to the airport and fly a std    pattern!  Maybe we’ll call that the Turkey Buzzard analysis program    reporting a real life 17:1 glide.[/i]   

[i] [/i]   

[i]To    sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed    composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about,  we are    encouraged by what they say about our kit.  We will get better yet as    this year goes by and you can rest assured that we won’t be reporting    performance we don’t see.[/i]   

[i] [/i]   

[i]Part    of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can’t always    believe the info posted on the net.  Too often list members make    observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of     expertise.  Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still……     Call me old fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom    that allows postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the    responsibility to have some idea of what they are talking    about.[/i]   

[i] [/i]   

[i]Pete[/i]   

    

             

   

From:    owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith

Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47    AM

To:    lightning-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Qualith of build    and durability?

   

          

I am interesting in possibly purchasing    the Lightning and have been surfing around the forums for information on the    aircraft.  Since it is so new, it is difficult to find many people who    have experience with it.  My concern is that I am need to research this    well as spending this much money on a hobby is not well spent if I am not    happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the line.   

    

In reading one particular forum, I came    across a couple of guys asking questions about the Lightning and    one gentleman’s thoughts on the aircraft after visiting the Arion    Aircraft web site.

      

 

      

[i]An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this    one but they do show quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at    least a few cursory observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified    copy of a Lancair 235 or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to    be using a different wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but    overall it seems similar enough to at least raise an    eyebrow.[/i]



[i][i]They    show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies so you    can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together. It looks    to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would need a bit    of a closer examination in order to see the    details.[/i]



[i]But    looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is:    Sloppy. If these pictures are    truly representative of their parts and their work I'd probably recommend a    deeper investigation before committing. The first picture I randomly selected    was that of the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance shows that the molded    part came out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost as if the material    bunched up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at the sides of the    fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to be poorly shaped    (look at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities that make it look    like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading and    maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite    frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor tooling or    maybe poor quality control during    fabrication.[/i]



[i]Another area that might cause some concern is the wing    spar - possibly the strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of    all, it is a combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this    type of structure is not recommended unless one really understands how the    materials behave together. The significant difference in stiffness between the    glass and the graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently,    with more of the load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this    is not understood in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual    structural problems.[/i]



[i]From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of    the spar, the graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way    it is laid up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which    way. Not really a good presentation and certainly not something that most    companies would want to use as a demonstration of their    skills.[/i]



[i]Regarding    their performance numbers, they look to be something that they took from some    analysis program without really verifying what they were presenting - I'd    prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too    would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean    airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea,    I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be    true.[/i]



[i]In short, if    you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire someone in your    area that really knows small airplane design and engineering issues and have    him or her go through their factory with    you.[/i][/i]



This kind of spooked me, (mainly    because I do not understand composites); so I did a little research on some of    the ponts regarding the spar and hear similar opinions.  I would be    interested in hearing why the wing spar is constructed in this manner?     Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the wing and not out to the    end of the spar.  Is there a design consideration in this?  The    points about the finish are not really that big a concern to me.  While    true that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar,    I believe this because their products are delivered in a more complete state,    (those companies having the opportunity to do more finishing on their end), I    don't mind a little body work now and then.

      

 

      

Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning    seems to be a redesign of the Esqual?  Did the Esqual use the same type    of wing spar composition as the Lightning.  If so, this would lend some    validation to the fact that there must be several of those flying and no real    problems to speak of?

      

 

      

Please understand that I am not complaining about the    build quality or design, so do not take offense.  I am just searching for    some answers to questions that have been raised about the design and finish    before I make the decision to put down my    money.

      

 

      

Thanks for any help that you can    provide.

      

 

      

Georgie



   

          

   

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people    who know. Ask your question on Yahoo!    Answers.  	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4

 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5[b]

pequeajim

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

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Well now I feel really embarrassed as I was the one who originally asked the question about Arion Aircraft, looking for some input as to the aircraft finish and performance indicators.  Both Buz and Ryan have answered all of my questions to my satisfaction and I want you all to know that I did not let one man’s opinion affect my direction to purchase a Lightning, (or not).  Georgie; I have pretty much kept my nose out of this because Pete is right; there are so many “knowledgeable” people on the internet, it can be confusing as to who to believe.  I have asked around and understand the plusses and minuses of the Lightning design that I am very satisfied in what I would get when purchased.  Believe me, there are NO airplanes out there that do not have faults in some way.  Maybe the aircraft is too fast, too slow, requires too much finishing work, not enough, nothing is perfect.  In looking at the Lightning, my determination is that the plusses FAR OUTWEIGH any minuses that I would ever have to deal with.  That’s why I like the aircraft so much.  

   

Trust me…  Let’s ride down and take a look at what Ryan has in the shop.  It will answer all your questions.  

   

Jim!  

         

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim and Mary Young

 Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:31 PM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?  

  

   

Seems like it would be good if you  (or Nick) put your rebuttal on the homebuiltairplanes.com website under the same thread as the comments were made.  Letting it stand unchallenged there only seems to give it a sense of legitimacy.  Perhaps some of the other happy Lightning owners could also respond there.  However, I realize time is an issue so if you can't it's understandable but unfortunate.    

   

    

Jim Young  

  

    	  Quote: 	
		        

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete

 Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:53 PM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Qualith of build and durability?  

Hi All,  

   

The internet is a great tool but sometimes there are some posts that really make me shake my head.  The quote from the moderator of the www.homebuiltairplanes.com web site is another one of those.  It always amazes me when someone sets himself up as a self proclaimed “expert” and then makes statements based on assumptions about photos posted on another site.  

   

Sloppy?  He first talks about wrinkles in the rudder skin.  If he even had a cursory knowledge of composites he would know that the lines he sees are not wrinkles but the relief lines in the foam core that allow resin infusion.  He would also know that a light scuffing with sand paper would make them disappear.  The material was not bunched up.  Nor was it separated from the tool.  He makes assumptions without enough knowledge to make valid assumptions.  

   

Second, he talks about the spar.  He says that the combination of glass and carbon is “not recommended”.  Well, he should tell that to Cirrus, Pulsar, Boeing, and others.  Maybe they will change their wing construction to comply with this “expert”.  If he tells Cessna right away maybe they can change their wing before the first of the “New Generation” aircraft are sold!  He states that the carbon ends at the root rib when in actuality it extends on out the spar.  You just can’t see it in the photo.  Again, an “expert” making assumptions about items he can’t even see in a photo.  

   

He questions the spar strength?  On what basis?  Maybe his vast knowledge of composites?  We tested that wing  to 11 G positive.  Then we tested it to 11 G negative.  Then in the high speed stall configuration.  Photos of the test are on the web site.  95% of all aircraft wings in use today would not hold up to our test including Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Vans RV Series, Sonex, Zenith, and most others.  

   

Finally, he doubts our performance numbers and thinks they are from an “analysis program” and he would prefer to see “[i]something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven”.  [/i][i]Again he’s assuming we are not being forthright with our performance numbers.  Well, those who know us and build with us know that we have not used “analysis programs” in the development of this aircraft.  We built it the way we thought it should be built based on our experience over the last nearly 20 years building dozens of homebuilt aircraft.  We put our own butt on the line and went out and flew it and reported the performance we saw.  We prove it again every week by flying beside Vans RV-6 & 7’s and finding that we are faster when flown in the economy cruise mode.  The RV’s will go faster if the pilots push the throttle to the 13 gph fuel use rate but at their 9.5 gph rate we are faster using our 5.5 gph.  We even got to report first hand our glide ratio when Nick hit a turkey buzzard on the spinner and the prop shattered 7 miles away from the airport at 2500 ft above the ground and he had enough glide to get back to the airport and fly a std pattern!  Maybe we’ll call that the Turkey Buzzard analysis program reporting a real life 17:1 glide.[/i][i][/i]  

[i] [/i]  

[i]To sum it up, when we listen to the comments of builders who have completed composite aircraft and really know what they are talking about,  we are encouraged by what they say about our kit.  We will get better yet as this year goes by and you can rest assured that we won’t be reporting performance we don’t see.[/i]  

[i] [/i]  

[i]Part of my reason for responding here is to illustrate that you can’t always believe the info posted on the net.  Too often list members make observations and offer opinions and advise that is well out of their area of  expertise.  Maybe they did sleep at a Holiday Inn but still……  Call me old fashioned but I think authors should remember that the freedom that allows postings on some internet list should be accompanied by the responsibility to have some idea of what they are talking about.[/i]  

[i] [/i]  

[i]Pete[/i]  

   

         

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George SMith

 Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:47 AM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Qualith of build and durability?  

  

       

I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been surfing around the forums for information on the aircraft.  Since it is so new, it is difficult to find many people who have experience with it.  My concern is that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the line.  

   

In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking questions about the Lightning and one gentleman’s thoughts on the aircraft after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.  

    

   

    

[i]An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235 or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems similar enough to at least raise an eyebrow.[/i]

 

 [i][i]They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together. It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.[/i]

 

 [i]But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is: Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a cursory glance shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool. Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The surface seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with surface discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It is possible that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of anything that would cause this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality control during fabrication.[/i]

 

 [i]Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of structure is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials behave together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass and the graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently, with more of the load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is not understood in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual structural problems.[/i]

 

 [i]From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not really a good presentation and certainly not something that most companies would want to use as a demonstration of their skills.[/i]

 

 [i]Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and flight proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims, although it is a clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even without the prop it sounds way too good to be true.[/i]

 

 [i]In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.[/i][/i]

 

 This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so I did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear similar opinions.  I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is constructed in this manner?  Why is carbon fiber just through the interior of the wing and not out to the end of the spar.  Is there a design consideration in this?  The points about the finish are not really that big a concern to me.  While true that the finish is not the same as that of say a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe this because their products are delivered in a more complete state, (those companies having the opportunity to do more finishing on their end), I don't mind a little body work now and then.  

    

   

    

Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a redesign of the Esqual?  Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar composition as the Lightning.  If so, this would lend some validation to the fact that there must be several of those flying and no real problems to speak of?  

    

   

    

Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or design, so do not take offense.  I am just searching for some answers to questions that have been raised about the design and finish before I make the decision to put down my money.  

    

   

    

Thanks for any help that you can provide.  

    

   

    

Georgie  

  

  

       

  

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.    	  Quote: 	
		     	
[/b] 	  Quote: 	
		  [b]  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2

       [quote][b]

pdukor1(at)tampabay.rr.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: Qualith of build and durability?

Bravo!



Looking forward to S & F



Paul

Sarasota, Florida



---

georgiemun

Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 10
Location: New Hope, PA

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:53 am Post subject: Re: Qualith of build and durability? (Thanks)

Thank you to all who have made the effort to answer my questions.



Jim:  I will contact you when I am going down.



Georgie

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