 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
georgiemun
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 10
Location: New Hope, PA
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: Quality 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.<?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 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]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
Last edited by georgiemun on Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: Qualith of build and durability? |
|
|
George,
Let me answer a couple of questions. I'm not an employee but have flown
the Lightnings, and the Esquals and then several other experimental and/or
light sport. The Lightning IS NOT a redesign of the Esqual. It was
designed to fill the gap when the Esqual stopped production. The mission is
the same and so the looks are similar, but definately not identical. The
wing is a different airfoil shape. It is constructed in a similar manner
though. The plane was also static tested to around 10G's if memory serves
without failing. I don't know who wrote this review, and I don't know what
pics are used to reference, but I'd say that they're talking about the
prototype which was different in many ways from the production models. The
prototype is a lot rougher of a plane and doesn't have a clearcoat finish on
it b/c we're going to be beating it to death doing research. As for the
allegations that this gentleman made it has been flight tested extensively,
and then indipendently verified from somebody who doesn't work for the
company. The guy was more right when he said it looked like the early
Lancair. That would probably be b/c some of the same people that helped
design those early Lancairs helped with the Lightning project. So his
insinuations that the design was "stolen" are totally unfounded. Instead
the design was made from the minds of people who had been there and tried
that and so again it looks similar to their other works, but also has some
built in refinements. The structure is more solid than most all of your
normally certified aircraft. The glide ratio I haven't independently
confirmed, but if you look at other light sport aircraft you'll see this
kind of glide ratio or more.
My thoughts is that this guy didn't understand composites either, didn't
know what he was looking at or anything about the product and still voiced
his opinions instead of checking it out himself. So, I'll invite you to
stick around and check it out for yourself and see the pics and even come
out and see how it's done! For the structure though I'll tell you this, I'm
young, only been married a couple of years, thinking about starting a
family, and I wouldn't fly a plane that I thought wouldn't be safe. Brian
W.
From: George SMith <georgiemun(at)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com
To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Qualith of build and durability?
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 06:47:01 -0800 (PST)
I am interesting in possibly purchasing the Lightning and have been surfing
around the forums for information on the aircraft. Since it is so new, it
is difficult to find many people who have experience with it. My concern is
that I am need to research this well as spending this much money on a hobby
is not well spent if I am not happy with my purchase 2-3 years down the
line.
In reading one particular forum, I came across a couple of guys asking
questions about the Lightning and one gentleman’s thoughts on the aircraft
after visiting the Arion Aircraft web site.
An interesting new airplane. I haven't heard of this one but they do show
quite a bit at their web site to alloow me to make at least a few cursory
observations. First, it looks like a slightly modified copy of a Lancair 235
or 320. There are minor differences and it does look to be using a different
wing section (although I'd have to confirm that), but overall it seems
similar enough to at least raise an eyebrow.
They show quite a few pictures of the parts and the various sub assemblies
so you can get at least an idea of what's involved in putting this together.
It looks to be a fairly standard structure although one or two areas would
need a bit of a closer examination in order to see the details.
But looking through all the presentation materials all I could think of is:
Sloppy. If these pictures are truly representative of their parts and their
work I'd probably recommend a deeper investigation before committing. The
first picture I randomly selected was that of the rudder assembly. Even a
cursory glance shows that the molded part came out of the tool with surface
wrinkles - almost as if the material bunched up and separated from the tool.
Also, looking at the sides of the fuselage, that too looks to be uneven. The
surface seems to be poorly shaped (look at the light reflections) with
surface discontinuities that make it look like the surface of an orange. It
is possible that this is misleading and maybe it has something to do with
the tool prep or the primer coat, but quite frankly I can't think of
anything that would cause this except poor tooling or maybe poor quality
control during fabrication.
Another area that might cause some concern is the wing spar - possibly the
strength, but more so the manufacturing itself. First of all, it is a
combination of graphite and glass. While feasible, generally this type of
structure is not recommended unless one really understands how the materials
behave together. The significant difference in stiffness between the glass
and the graphite makes each component see the loads a bit differently, with
more of the load going to the stiffer component of the structure. If this is
not understood in the design of the part, this could lead to eventual
structural problems.
>From the layup standpoint, if you look at the root of the spar, the
graphite ends petty much at the root rib. Why? And then the way it is laid
up, it is very sloppy, with untrimmed fibers running every which way. Not
really a good presentation and certainly not something that most companies
would want to use as a demonstration of their skills.
Regarding their performance numbers, they look to be something that they
took from some analysis program without really verifying what they were
presenting - I'd prefer to see something that's a bit more accurate and
flight proven. I too would be a bit skeptical of several of the claims,
although it is a clean airplane and some of the numbers may not be too far
off. The glide ratio? Yea, I'd question that too. Even without the prop it
sounds way too good to be true.
In short, if you're interested in this airplane I'd suggest that you hire
someone in your area that really knows small airplane design and engineering
issues and have him or her go through their factory with you.
This kind of spooked me, (mainly because I do not understand composites); so
I did a little research on some of the ponts regarding the spar and hear
similar opinions. I would be interested in hearing why the wing spar is
constructed in this manner? Why is carbon fiber just through the interior
of the wing and not out to the end of the spar. Is there a design
consideration in this? The points about the finish are not really that big
a concern to me. While true that the finish is not the same as that of say
a CT, Dynamic, or Pulsar, I believe this because their products are
delivered in a more complete state, (those companies having the opportunity
to do more finishing on their end), I don't mind a little body work now and
then.
Also, from reading this list, I see that the lightning seems to be a
redesign of the Esqual? Did the Esqual use the same type of wing spar
composition as the Lightning. If so, this would lend some validation to the
fact that there must be several of those flying and no real problems to
speak of?
Please understand that I am not complaining about the build quality or
design, so do not take offense. I am just searching for some answers to
questions that have been raised about the design and finish before I make
the decision to put down my money.
Thanks for any help that you can provide.
Georgie
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: Qualith of build and durability? |
|
|
Georgie,
When I read a quote like you have attached and I copied below, I like to ask these questions:
1) Does the writer of the piece make any material misrepresentations? For example, he thinks the spar is a mixture of grapite and glass. (it isnt) Then he thinks the molded material is "bunched up". That assumption is completely wrong. Other than an occasional problem area with a tiny bit of "orange peel", the molded quality is exceptional. There are others, like the assumption that it is a copy of a Lancair because it looks like one! That is the equivalent of suggesting a Airbus is a copy of a Boeing!
2) Do the assertions with conclusions pass the pragmatic test? I would suggest his conclusions based on a "sloppy" website should actually be the reverse. There are some very fine websites out there for aircraft that may not even exist. Some of you may recall the CAG Toxo "prototype" that debued a year ago at OshKosh. They had a fabuous brochure. (turned out the entire effort was funded by the Spanish Government) The website, www.toxoaero.com is still up and does look much better than the Lighning website..but it hasnt changed since 2005!!. by the way, they have yet to fly one in the United States after more than FIVE years of promise!!! When I tried to sit in the Toxo at Osh Kosh 2005, the top 4 inches of my head stuck out ABOVE the gull-doors of the canopy!!! The Lighting site is actually a clue about its voracity. It has: 1)changes in progress based on flying and experimenting advances, 2) website done by people flying and building airplanes most days, not sitting behind a computer screen most days, 3)the "news" section actually contains NEWS not Press Releases!!!
3) The writer asserts that the performance numbers are proposed, not measured. From the postings on this listserve, it should be obvious that there are a number of them flying now and the listed numbers are not in dispute.
4) I think the wise writer would not be willing to draw the conclusions suggested without more data. That makes the assertions opinions not facts. We all have opinions but not all of us have earned the right to be heard.
When I look at the writer's comments based on the above, I would be happy to discount not just part of what he suggests, but ALL OF IT!!!
My suggestion is this: Go fly one. Look at a kit. Read the comments on this listserve by people who really do know airplanes and are NOT PAID by the factory. (Like Buz) If it fits your mission profile, then go for it!!! None of us are getting any younger, so the speed of assembling the Lighning has tremendous appeal. It is one of the few airplanes that the wait to receive a kit will be longer than it takes to build one!!
Doug Koenigsberg
In a message dated 2/3/2007 9:49:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, georgiemun(at)yahoo.com writes:
| Quote: |
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.
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: Qualith of build and durability? |
|
|
Georgie,
When I read a quote like you have attached and I copied below, I like to ask these questions:
1) Does the writer of the piece make any material misrepresentations? For example, he thinks the spar is a mixture of grapite and glass. (it isnt) Then he thinks the molded material is "bunched up". That assumption is completely wrong. Other than an occasional problem area with a tiny bit of "orange peel", the molded quality is exceptional. There are others, like the assumption that it is a copy of a Lancair because it looks like one! That is the equivalent of suggesting a Airbus is a copy of a Boeing!
2) Do the assertions with conclusions pass the pragmatic test? I would suggest his conclusions based on a "sloppy" website should actually be the reverse. There are some very fine websites out there for aircraft that may not even exist. Some of you may recall the CAG Toxo "prototype" that debued a year ago at OshKosh. They had a fabuous brochure. (turned out the entire effort was funded by the Spanish Government) The website, www.toxoaero.com is still up and does look much better than the Lighning website..but it hasnt changed since 2005!!. by the way, they have yet to fly one in the United States after more than FIVE years of promise!!! When I tried to sit in the Toxo at Osh Kosh 2005, the top 4 inches of my head stuck out ABOVE the gull-doors of the canopy!!! The Lighting site is actually a clue about its voracity. It has: 1)changes in progress based on flying and experimenting advances, 2) website done by people flying and building airplanes most days, not sitting behind a computer screen most days, 3)the "news" section actually contains NEWS not Press Releases!!!
3) The writer asserts that the performance numbers are proposed, not measured. From the postings on this listserve, it should be obvious that there are a number of them flying now and the listed numbers are not in dispute.
4) I think the wise writer would not be willing to draw the conclusions suggested without more data. That makes the assertions opinions not facts. We all have opinions but not all of us have earned the right to be heard.
When I look at the writer's comments based on the above, I would be happy to discount not just part of what he suggests, but ALL OF IT!!!
My suggestion is this: Go fly one. Look at a kit. Read the comments on this listserve by people who really do know airplanes and are NOT PAID by the factory. (Like Buz) If it fits your mission profile, then go for it!!! None of us are getting any younger, so the speed of assembling the Lighning has tremendous appeal. It is one of the few airplanes that the wait to receive a kit will be longer than it takes to build one!!
Doug Koenigsberg
In a message dated 2/3/2007 9:49:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, georgiemun(at)yahoo.com writes:
| Quote: |
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.
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vettin74(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: Qualith of build and durability? |
|
|
George Smith...
I will let others who are simply customers, who have flown and built there lightnings , respond to this e-mail first. I think it is only fair that you get some unbiased opinions from those who have actually delt with the product and have not simply seen a few photos on a web page. Further more i would be very curios to know were this post was written as i might respond with a bit of correct information as to set this individual straight. Because i have put so much into this project i can not watch it be described in this manner by one so uninformed...
Nick Otterback
Arion Aircraft LLC...
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 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 We won't tell. Get more on [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ]shows you hate to love[/url]
(and love to hate): [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 ]Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.[/url] [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
testpilot(at)wildblue.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: Qualith of build and durability? |
|
|
Hi George
Just a note from a lighting kit builder at present, also a velocity XL-5, Preceptor pup (2), and have rebuilt many types of certified aircraft. I am an A&P. I served 26 years in the civil service and military as a test pilot in R&D and maintenance holding positions as director of aviation maintenance with over 300 employees, flight instructor and examiner, aircraft accident investigator and aviation safety office. I hold degrees in Aviation management and Aerospace engineering.
I looked at the lighting in Oct 2006. Arion employees and Greg Hobbs, the dealer, were completely open to all my questions and talked about development problems and solutions they found. I like the way they jump on problems and come up with improvements continually. It is very costly to constantly change the production requirements but they do it. I have only found one part that was manufacture poorly (subcontractor) and they not only replaced it but found a way to improve on it making future maintenance much easier. I like that! Yes I have seen some questionable quality but that was on the prototype 1.5 and to my amazement they pointed it out to me without my seeing it first, then they showed me how they had improved the aircraft. The quality of my aircraft, based on 37 years in aviation I will say this, "this build is a piece of cake and the aircraft will finish beautifully." I just need to do my 51% or go buy another "certified aircraft". Just my thoughts. Have fun
Johnny Thompson "Only work for myself"
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
georgiemun
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 10
Location: New Hope, PA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Qualith of build and durability? |
|
|
To be fair, I think the poster was commenting based on the pictures that are shown on the Lightning web site, and not trying to tear down the aircraft, but raising questions based on these pictures. If the pictures are of the prototype, then that is all a visitor has to go by and while they may not be representative of the kits beign produced today, they do show some manufacturing issues. I think it is better to post a limited number of pics rather than post those that raise questions.
Passionate users tend to be very defensive of their aircraft, and I would feel the same way, but you guys are commenting on something that you own; can see, feel and fly every day. So far, I only have their web site to go by. You have to admit, the pics of the wing spar and some of the components are not the cleanest of build quality with frayed carbon fiber showing in the root of the spar and ripples in the finish.
Does this matter, probably not, but I don't think I would post these pics on my web site. I would go for something a little more representative of the quality delivered today.
Someone commented that I should go and see one, I will, at Sun n Fun. Then I will follow that up with a trip to a local dealer to see some in the build stages if they have any on site.
As far as being a copy of another aircraft, I did not take his comment that way. I took it as a complement. There are too many similar designs to be loosing sleep over the fact that the Lightning looks like a Lancair, which looks like a WT9, which looks like a Pulsar, which looks like a.... I felt like he was paying the aircraft a complement.
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?
Understand that while I am an engineer, I am not in any way shape or form an aircraft designer. I am just trying to educate myself before a potential purchase
Thanks again for your responses.
Gerogie
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pequeajim
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 708
Location: New Holland, PA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: Quality of build and durability? |
|
|
[quote]The other thing to know Georgie is that this list is VERY active for such a small number of owners and they are all VERY willing to share information and help each other out. I guess that is because they are so passionate about their aircraft, and why not? It’s a great bird. You will find Ryan down at Green Landings knowledgeable and helpful if you want to give him a call. [b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
