Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

RV-9A v. Lightening
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

deuskid

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

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:00 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

I'm in the 'consider' stage of building.  I may be needing x-c several times a month [~500 nm one way] and I like composites [I considered a canard originally] but it is difficult to ignore Vans.



I sent the spreadsheet attached to the lightning website contact email on 8-7 with RV-9A info asking them to populate it with their info for comparison purposes but haven't heard from them.



I have some questions re: the Lightening



can it be equiped IFR w/ auto pilot?

what are the cockpit dimesions?

how many are flying and how many being built?

the website shows both the sport and the full Lightening to use the same engine so can a 'regular' be converted to sport at a later date without much modification/cost if necessary?



Thanks in advance.



John

pete(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Hello John,



The Lightning can be equipped with IFR instruments and an autopilot.

Cockpit is 44 inches wide.

There are 4 flying and 26 sold to date.

It is not within the rules to "convert" a non LSA compliant plane to a LSA

compliant one as the rule states the aircraft must have been "originally

certificated and continuously operated" within the parameters of light sport

to be flown by a pilot with light sport privileges.



Let me know if you have more questions.



Pete Krotje

Arion Aircraft, LLC



--

wolfern(at)andrews.edu
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:14 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

I have also been looking at the lightning and wondering what type of  

baggage compartment space there is?  From the pictures on the  

lightning website it does not look like much.

thanks

Nick



On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Pete wrote:



[quote] 



 Hello John,



 The Lightning can be equipped with IFR instruments and an autopilot.

 Cockpit is 44 inches wide.

 There are 4 flying and 26 sold to date.

 It is not within the rules to "convert" a non LSA compliant plane  

 to a LSA

 compliant one as the rule states the aircraft must have been  

 "originally

 certificated and continuously operated" within the parameters of  

 light sport

 to be flown by a pilot with light sport privileges.



 Let me know if you have more questions.



 Pete Krotje

 Arion Aircraft, LLC



 --

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:44 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

John,

     Pete has answered your basic questions, but let me  add a few personal thoughts that might help you decide between the RV-9 and the  Lightning.  But before I do, please understand that I have only flown the  Lightning prototype - not an RV-9.  I have flown an RV-3, but no other  RV models.  I do have lots of flying time in close to 100 different  airplanes including lots of experimental / sport aviation types.  I have  built two airplanes of my own and am helping building an EAA chapter  airplane at present.  I have restored several Vintage aircraft (two  were Oshkosh and Sun-N- Fun champions), and am a long time EAA flight advisor  and technical counselor.  Lastly, I am in no way connected to the Lightning  folks, other than being a happy customer for one of their other aircraft kits  (Esqual) and a Jabiru engine.  So here are some thoughts:

 -First off, I would think that the stated cruise speed of 175 for the  Lightning is probably closer to a 65% power setting.  The problem is that  Jabiru has not provided a percent HP chart for the 3300 engine.  Ben  (Pete's son) is working on that with the Jabiru factory guys, but obviously it  is not one of their highest priorities.  

 -The stall speed for the Lightning will depend of which version you  build.  The "regular / fast" version has a gross weight of 1425 pounds and  the stall at gross is 54 to 56 clean or 44 to 46 with flaps.  The Light  Sport version has a 1320 gross and the stall will be 47 to 49 clean or  

 38 to 40 with flaps.

 -Looking at the RV-9 chart you sent, I would think the Lightning  performance would fall between the 135 HP and the 160 HP "Nine".  The  exception would be in fuel burn.  The 3300 Jab is a great little economical  engine and will certainly burn less fuel.  

 -I think your final decision should certainly include the amount of time,  effort, and dollars you want to put into getting your airplane up and  flying.  The Lightning kit and Jabiru should get you in the air much  quicker (as little as 5 to 6 weeks if you use their builders assist program  and their painter).  Final cost will depend on how you equip the panel, but  a new Jabiru 3300 engine is probably less dollars than a rebuilt  Lycoming. 

 -One final thought:  Which one looks best to your  eye? 

 Good Luck on your decision.  Let us know how it goes.

 Blue Skies,

 Buz Rich

  [quote][b]

jackb911

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 2

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening

John,



I'm sure that the decision is not easy. I managed to get some time in both an RV6 and an Esqual. (The Esqual is very similar to the Lightning and was sold by the Lightning folks, but it looks like they no longer support it. However, the Esqual continues to be sold and supported in Europe. The European people are advertising for a new US dealer).



On a cross country platform it is my opinion that the Lightning will not be as stable or as fast as the RV. But then it won't burn as much fuel either. Your mpg in the Lightning should be better. Balanced control surfaces on the RV were great, the Esqual and I suspect the Lightning not as good. Either plane might be able to be tweaked. You might tweak the Lightning to higher speeds than normal, but the RV9 can likewise be tweaked higher. Stability for cross country was better in the RV than the Esqual; I suspect primarily due to a combination of wing loading and overall increased weight and well harmonized control input. In IFR, I would rather be in the Vans.



Mile for mile, the Lightning should fly at a lower fuel cost. Engine maintenance - I haven't talked with enough Jabiru people to feel like I have a good comparison. It is easy to take the Lycoming O-360 to several places near home no matter where you live for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't have the same options. It continues to suffer from heating issues but seems to be a great little engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru might be the Rotax 912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe use the Rotax with favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there are not as many service options.



The Vans has thousands of RV's flying and years of experience. The Lightning is new with good potential, but little track record (The Esqual has several years of favorable track record in Europe and a few in the US). 



I would guess that you should be able to get the Lightning in the air faster with less build time.  If you would rather be flying than building then the Lightning seems to have the advantage. On structural strength my nod goes to the RV especially if aerobatics are considered. The RV has maybe a 1/4 to 1/3 more baggage area available.



The Esqual is a less complex aircraft for flying, better suited for low time pilots. The low handling speeds were great! I'm not sure if the Lightning can get as close to the lower handling speeds, but if so that would be a nice positive.



The looks of the Lightning are impressive! With the right paint job I think that it (and the Esqual) are my favorites on curb appeal.



Bottom line? The decision will come down to pilot preference. Both planes  appear to be good planes. One has a long track record, the other is just starting to build one. Before you decide, you should definitely spend some time flying in both, research the power plant pros and cons, and consider what support you might need for your plane down the road and will it be there. Don't get so caught up in your dreams that you overlook the realities of how each plane flies today. After you have listened to me and everyone else, it is your money, time, and life that are on the line.



Just another opinion out of many.



Good luck!

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

IMile for mile, the Lightning should fly at a lower fuel cost. Engine 

maintenance - I haven't talked with enough Jabiru people to feel like I have 

a good comparison. It is easy to take the Lycoming O-360 to several places 

near home no matter where you live for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't 

have the same options. It continues to suffer from heating issues but seems 

to be a great little engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru 

might be the Rotax 912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe 

use the Rotax with favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there 

are not as many service options.



The Vans has thousands of RV's flying and years of experience. The Lightning 

is new with good potential, but little track record (The Esqual has several 

years of favorable track record in Europe and a few in the US).



I would guess that you should be able to get the Lightning in the air faster 

with less build time.  If you would rather be flying than building then the 

Lightning seems to have the advantage. On structural strength my nod goes to 

the RV especially if aerobatics are considered. The RV has maybe a 1/4 to 

1/3 more baggage area available.



The Esqual is a less complex aircraft for flying, better suited for low time 

pilots. The low handling speeds were great! I'm not sure if the Lightning 

can get as close to the lower handling speeds, but if so that would be a 

nice positive.



John,

   I have not flown an RV-6, although I plan to get some time in one before 

too long.  I have flown both the Lightning and Esqual though.  It is my 

underdstanding that the Esqual company has sold out and possibly reforming 

another company to market the Esqual.  Right now in Shelbyville there are 

two Esquals which are being built.  These will be the last two built here 

unless they start making new kits again.  Although I have not flown the RV6, 

Nick that test flew the first Lightning has flown both.  So I do have some 

basis for comparison here.  Nick relayed that the RV-6 was less stable in 

roll than the Lightning.  The pitch is fairly comparable.  Fuel burn at 75% 

cruise is about 5.5 gph on the Lightning.  This is a 120hp engine that will 

give you a cruise of 185mph which is almost identical to a 150hp RV.   So I 

would have to say that the Lightning would be better for cross-country 

flying.  The only way that I would deviate from that is if you needed a lot 

of cargo room.  You're probably not going to get a couple of suit cases in 

there, but then again you won't get a whole lot in the RV either.  If we 

ever made the Lightning with the 180hp 8 cylinder Jabiru it would be faster 

than any of the RV series of aircraft.



On a 1500 mile + trip from TN to Arizona the ride was smoother than an 

Esqual and the only turbulence was where you'd expect it and it wasn't more 

than minor chop.  The Lightning does have slightly reclined seating and I 

think that for long trips, fashioning some sort of headrest would be more 

comfortable as I kept wanting to bend my neck forward so that my head was up 

straight.  We covered the last 500 miles in 2 hours 45 minutes which 

averages out to about 181mph.  The control feel for the Lightning is totally 

different than the Esqual is.  The controls are counterweighted and the 

inputs have more of a solid and fluid feel to them.  In IFR conditions the 

Lightning does not have static wicks and therefore could be a no-go if 

flying around thunderstorms.



Jack was right that finding a person to work on the Jabiru engine might be a 

little harder to find.  There is an engine seminar program here in 

Shelbyville that can be taken.  Then there are kits that can be sent out for 

overhaul or you can bring it in for overhaul.  The Jabiru requires little 

maintenance other than the normal oil change.  It is much cheaper to 

overhaul than either a Lycoming or Continental.



We have had several people "convert" to at least looking at the Lightning 

over the RV series simply due to the short build times.  I would look 

carefully at the structural strength.  The Lightning is not considered an 

aerobatic aircraft, so if that is a consideration then you might want to 

look at the RV.  On the other hand the Lightning wing had an Ultimate Load 

Factor that will surpass over 95% of aircraft that are built today.  The 

Lightning comes in just slightly faster than a standard Esqual, but less 

than 10mph faster if I remember correctly.  I come in at 70mph in the 

Lightning and rotate around 60.  So that is a pretty slow speed.  The 

Lightning, however does fly much differently than the Esqual.  You aim for a 

landing point and if you are on speed then you land where you want.  The 

Esqual would float forever.  The Lightning does not.  I would rate the 

Lightning as harder to fly than the Esqual, but not difficult.  It isn't any 

harder to fly than an RV6.  I would not put a low time pilot in one without 

getting some transition training.



One last thought.  The RV is metal, and the Lightning is composite.  You 

don't get the curves with the metal.  It is a different kind of construction 

as well.  If you want to fly fast in a short amount of time and have great 

looks and superb handling I'd go with the lightning.  If you want a little 

longer to get in the air and fly a few knots faster with up to twice the 

fuel burn and still good handling, I'd go with the RV.

                                    Just my observations,  Brian W.

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

In a message dated 8/18/2006 12:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,  dashvii(at)hotmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Brian Whittingham"    <dashvii(at)hotmail.com>



IMile for mile, the Lightning should fly at    a lower fuel cost. Engine 

maintenance - I haven't talked with enough    Jabiru people to feel like I have 

a good comparison. It is easy to take    the Lycoming O-360 to several places 

near home no matter where you live    for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't 

have the same options. It    continues to suffer from heating issues but seems 

to be a great little    engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru 

might be the Rotax    912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe 

use the Rotax with    favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there 

are not as many    service options.

	


 

  

 Just noting that the 3300 Jabiru horsepower exceeds both the 912 and  troublesom 914...for less money than either.   Also much easier to  install a Jab engine that a 912.  Every 912 install looks like a  plumbers nightmare.  Also note that a 912 should be considered a "throw  away" engine.  Overhauls equal the price of a new engine.

  

 Maintenance of  1930's engine such as the Continental or Lycoming is  not cheap.  Changing spark plugs for $1.77 each on a Jab is very  different that $15 or 20 each for the others.   And there is the  matter of engine weight.  It is like having an extra passenger along on  each flight.

  

 I would also note that  constructing an RV takes at least 10 times as  long as a Lightning.  Just visit some local guy trying to build one as he  is constructing the fuselage.  I suspect half of the airframe weight is  from rivets.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  [quote][b]

pete(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

All,



Here's a email that has me just chomping at the bit to correct some real

inaccuracies from someone who didn't sign his name!



Let's start with stability for cross country.  We had the opportunity to fly

a RV-6 for a few hours a few weeks ago to compare handling.  The RV was

great but - the Lightning was its equal.  The Lightning was more stable in

roll and about the same in pitch.  The RV pitch forces got quite heavy with

advancing speed while Lightning's did not.  If you are equating the

stability of Lightning to Esqual you are on the wrong track and your are

putting out an opinion not based on any fact.  The Lightning is much

different from the Esqual in handling, stability, control response, and

general flight qualities.  It is a more substantial aircraft all around.



The Lightning cruises 5 knots slower than the 160 hp RV 6 that we flew.  On

a three hour flight that would equate to 6 minutes difference.  Yes - it is

a bit slower but it uses 5.5 gph vs the 9 that the RV was using.  On that

three hour flight with gas at $4.00 it cost $42 to gain those 6 minutes.



Engine maintenance is probably easier with the Jabiru engine. If you are out

in the boondocks you can get Jabiru plugs, dust caps, rotors, and even mags

at most auto stores.  Try walking into your autozone in a town where there

is no aircraft maintenance and asking for parts for your Lycoming mag!

Granted, there are not many A&P's with Jabiru experience but the number is

growing and in a few short years there will be a selection of places near

home where you can take your Jabiru engine for repairs that cost far, far

less than a Lycoming repair.



As far as the "heating issues" you mention with Jabiru:  those are

installation issues that are no fault of the engine.  If a Lycoming was

installed with the same engineering as most of the Jabiru's with "heating

issues" were installed you'd be telling us about Lycomings with heating

issues - but you'd have to leave off the bit about smooth running.  As far

as the Rotax being an alternative - only the earlier Esquals in Europe were

Rotax powered.  Since 2003 when Jabiru was introduced as an option the vast

majority of Esquals have been Jabiru powered because performance and

reliability is better.  



As far as structural strength - you are wrong again about Lightning.  Esqual

probably is not as strong as an RV but Lightning is built stronger than the

Van's product.  We can show you photos of Lightning wings loaded to 11 G

positive & negative.  I'd like to see the Vans wing loaded to 11G.  I have

the feeling there would be some crumpled metal.



The final point of your email is a good one - it needs to come down to pilot

preference.  As you say - it's "your money, time, and life".  That's why

when an unsigned email comes along with facts that are just wrong or

unsupported opinions disguised as facts - it is good to hear the other side.

That's what the internet is for, right?  Anyone can say anything at any time

- right or wrong - and not take responsibility for it.



Pete



--

Daniel Vandenberg

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 22

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Doug...



Slightly off topic but....could you describe in a nutshell why the 914 is considered troublesome (other than the fact that it is hideously expensive)?  Thanks.



Dan



Kayberg(at)aol.com wrote:[quote]      In a message dated 8/18/2006 12:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,  dashvii(at)hotmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Brian Whittingham"    <dashvii(at)hotmail.com>



IMile for mile, the Lightning should fly at    a lower fuel cost.  Engine 

maintenance - I haven't talked with enough    Jabiru people to feel like I have 

a good comparison. It is easy to take    the Lycoming O-360 to several places 

near home no matter where you live    for needed attention. The Jabiru doesn't 

have the same options. It    continues to suffer from heating issues but seems 

to be a great little    engine and is very smooth. An alternative to the Jabiru 

might be the Rotax    912 or 914. Almost all of the Esquals flying in Europe 

use the Rotax with    favorable results. But again, even with the Rotax there 

are not as many    service options.

	


 

  

 Just noting that the 3300 Jabiru horsepower exceeds both the 912 and  troublesom 914...for less money than either.   Also much easier to  install a Jab engine that a 912.  Every 912 install looks like a  plumbers nightmare.  Also note that a 912 should be considered 	 [quote][b]

jackb911

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 2

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening

Pete,



I feel like you just attacked me personally and openly for the post that I left. It's great on these forums to have an openess that allows each to give facts, varying opinions, and experiences. When you get personal with follow up replies, I think that you have gone too far and it stifles the  openess. Please be more considerate.



I made what I felt were some very positive comments about the Lighting including:



- Lower fuel costs

- Great looks

- Smooth Jabiru

- Faster build time



I don't take back the negatives - those are how I feel. I was honest and clear in making the negatives comparing with the Esqual. I hope that the Lightning succeeds. Sometime I hope to get a ride in one.



Bottom line, it is ok to disagree, just don't get personal.



Jack

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Ok,  We'll see if this works.  This is the first time that I've tried to 

post a photo on here.  Attached is a picture of the BRS system installed in 

the prototype before it was complete.   You can see that it takes up over 

1/3 of the room.  If Pete doesn't have it I can try to take some 

measurements of Earl's plane without the BRS on Monday and figure out the 

baggage compartment dimensions.  The baggage area goes nearly to the floor 

behind the seats.  On my trip out to AZ we each took a duffle and had enough 

room to put at least another on the floor.



The other picture is the one of the wing being ground tested to the 

equivalent of 11 G's.  I believe the flex at the tip was over 1 foot, but it 

didn't break!  Just a couple of cool pictures.  Hope Pete doesn't mind me 

reposting some of their own pictures, as I did not take these.  This is what 

he was referring to though.  If this works I'll see if I can post a couple 

of Earl's plane on here at some point.  Brian W.

vettin74(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

if anyone would like a play by play comparison between the lightning and a RV-6A i would be mor ethan happy to share, i have flown more than 100 hours in the lightning type aircraft and many hours in others including a intense flight check of a local RV-6A...i know how they both fly and can give an opinion of both with out speculation on how each may or may not perform.....

   

  nick



jackb911 <jackb911(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

  [quote]--> Lightning-List message posted by: "jackb911" 



Pete,



I feel like you just attacked me personally and openly for the post that I left. It's great on these forums to have an openess that allows each to give facts, varying opinions, and experiences. When you get personal with follow up replies, I think that you have gone too far and it stifles the openess. Get on board. [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40791/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/handraisers]You're invited[/url] to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. [quote][b]

pete(at)flylightning.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Jack,  (glad you signed your name this time)



I didn't get personal.  I didn't call names or anything like that.  I just

responded with fact to several of your anecdotal points that were in error.

We all are entitled to an opinion but we should make it clear that it is our

opinion and take responsibility for it.  As you can see I really get torqued

by unsigned emails that mention undefined negatives like "heating issues"

when I know from selling and installing hundreds of engines that the issues

are not engine issues.  Usually negatives like that come from third hand

accounts of someone who did not know what he was doing in the first place.



I do disagree with many of your conclusions and that was stated in my

response.  If you feel disagreeing with you is a personal attack - well I

think you are wrong there as well.



Pete



--

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Hey Jack, Buz here.

     This list is a great thing for sharing  information with others when you have something informative to share.  But  my thoughts after reading some of your message were - he must have flown  a really different Esqual than the ones I have flown and the engines must  not have been installed correctly for good cooling.   The  heating issue you mention is totally an airframe installation situation - not an  engine issue.  So bottom line, I actually  thought Pete went kind of  easy with his response.  My opinion.

     Here are some other statements you made that I  thought were misleading or hard to understand what you were really saying:

 -You said:  On a cross country platform it is my  opinion that the Lightning will not be as stable or as fast as the RV.  

 Since I am pretty sure you have not flown a Lightning, how did you form  this opinion?  Actually, a stable cross country platform is probably some  boring store bought C or P airframe.  Sport aircraft will never be as  stable as those - and generally no one that flys sport aircraft wants them to  be.  Will the Lightning be as fast on XC?  That will depend on which  Lightning and which RV-9A.  Differences of opinions is what makes horse  races.  Heck, I have a friend building an RV-9A (has been doing so for many  years) and I can't wait to blow by him in my Esqual.

 -You said:  Balanced  control surfaces on the RV were great, the Esqual and I suspect the Lightning  not as good. 

 I am confused by what you mean by balanced control surfaces.  The  Lightning has aerodynamic and statically balanced rudder and elevator - the  Esqual does not.  Are you maybe talking about control feel, or stick force  per "G" perhaps, or rate of change of aircraft displacement based on some  specific control input verses airspeed?  Not sure what you are  saying. 

  

 -You said:  Stability  for cross country was better in the RV than the Esqual 

 See above about sport aircraft and cross country , but my Esqual is a  great cross country airplane.  There is some required trim adjustment as  you burn fuel, but you can easily trim it hands off.  As long as you are  above the bumpy air down low, it is as smooth a ride as my Bonanza was.   

  

 -You mentioned the  term:  well harmonized control input.

 Once again I am  confused. I completely understand  "harmonized controls" referring to control feel, but if we are talking  "input" than that must be something that comes from the pilot.   If the pilot does not have at least good hands (mine are golden) then the input  may not be well harmonized.  Yes, I'm joshing with you here.

  

     In closing, I hope you can understand why Pete was  so concerned.  There is just too much of the "old wives tales" type of  information and "hangar talk" based on hearsay in aviation.  We need to  keep the information flow going, but it must be based on facts and not  hearsay.  

     Well, I'm ready to jink-out if you are  tracking and I am in your pipper, so take any shots.  Seriously, the  fact that you took the time to send your message shows that you care  and some of your information was good.  I would just caution you about  opinions without facts.  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz 



  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:40 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

In a message dated 8/18/2006 12:36:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,  djvdb63(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Doug...



Slightly off topic but....could you describe in a    nutshell why the 914 is considered troublesome (other than the fact that it is    hideously expensive)?  Thanks.



Dan

	


 

  

 My view of troublesome is not from direct experience but stray  anicdotes.

  

 It is not easy to fabricate a mount for one and also fit it to the  airframe in a way that will function well.  It won't even fit on a  SkyRanger for example.

  

 It adds another level of fabrication and fitting to be sure the turbo will  be happy.

  

 Since it is more complex,  it adds a few more concerns to flight...one  must be sure all systems are functioning correctly.   Most engines  require some tweaking to achieve good performance.   But as the  complexity increases, the number of variables increases also.  Setting  multiple carbs is more complex than setting one for example. 

  

 Screwing up some of the tweaking shortens the life of such an engine.   That makes the high dollars go away faster!

  

 Perhaps others have more detailed opinions.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:18 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Jack,

  

 Your post in question reminds me of someone discussing the pros and cons of  two women he had never met.   Meeting the sister of each and  then infering their  physical charactoristics and personalities based  on that meeting is a bit speculative!   Noting out loud that  one sister has wide hips and the other broad shoulders therefore the unmet  sisters should be similarly blessed, is bound to be corrected by those who  really do know them!  The sharpness of the correction will be directly  related to the emotional investment of those who know!

  

 Is it true your sister's behind was used as the model for the front of the  new Mack Truck?

  

 While I am just asking,  it will be hard for you to not take it  personally ....unless you have no sister or you find my question to be  complimentary.   I would expect you to respond in a personal manner  since it involves an emotional investment.  Hence the response of Pete and  others.   

  

 Since I am a lover of irony,  I did enjoy your personal attack on Pete  for taking it personally!  

 (which he denies that it was personal)    And I am going to  deny this little post was personal (even tho we hope to be flying our Lightning  in 3 weeks).

  

 I enjoy a little rough and tumble on listserves.   Cuts the  boredom a bit.   Thanks for contributing a little excitment,  Jack.    Keep it up.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

  

  

  

  

 In a message dated 8/18/2006 4:20:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,  jackb911(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Pete,



I feel like you just attacked me personally and openly for    the post that I left. It's great on these forums to have an openess that    allows each to give facts, varying opinions, and experiences. When you get    personal with follow up replies, I think that you have gone too far and it    stifles the  openess. Please be more considerate.



I made what I    felt were some very positive comments about the Lighting including:



-    Lower fuel costs

- Great looks

- Smooth Jabiru

- Faster build    time



I don't take back the negatives - those are how I feel. I was    honest and clear in making the negatives comparing with the Esqual. I hope    that the Lightning succeeds. Sometime I hope to get a ride in    one.



Bottom line, it is ok to disagree, just don't get    personal.



Jack



	


 

  

  [quote][b]

sky2000diver(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:50 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Doug, were you talking about my sisters? I think thats

very crude and rude of you to go off in a tangent

about someone you dont know like that! What nerve!

John

--- owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com

<Kayberg(at)aol.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    

 Jack,

  

 Your post in question reminds me of someone

discussing the pros and cons of  
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   two women he had never met.   Meeting the sister of

each and  then infering 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   their  physical charactoristics and personalities

based  on that meeting is a 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   bit speculative!   Noting out loud that  one sister

has wide hips and the other 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   broad shoulders therefore the unmet  sisters should

be similarly blessed, is 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   bound to be corrected by those who  really do know

them!  The sharpness of the 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   correction will be directly  related to the

emotional investment of those who 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   know!

  

 Is it true your sister's behind was used as the

model for the front of the  
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   new Mack Truck?

  

 While I am just asking,  it will be hard for you to

not take it  personally 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   ....unless you have no sister or you find my

question to be  complimentary.   I 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   would expect you to respond in a personal manner 

since it involves an 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   emotional investment.  Hence the response of Pete

and  others.   
	


 	  Quote: 	
		    

 Since I am a lover of irony,  I did enjoy your

personal attack on Pete  for 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   taking it personally!  

 (which he denies that it was personal)    And I am

going to  deny this little 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   post was personal (even tho we hope to be flying our

Lightning  in 3 weeks).
	


 	  Quote: 	
		    

 I enjoy a little rough and tumble on listserves.  

Cuts the  boredom a bit.   
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   Thanks for contributing a little excitment,  Jack.

   Keep it up.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		    

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

  

  

  

  

 In a message dated 8/18/2006 4:20:39 PM Eastern

Standard Time,  
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   jackb911(at)yahoo.com writes:

 

 Pete,

 

 I feel like you just attacked me personally and

openly for  the post that I 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   left. It's great on these forums to have an openess

that  allows each to give 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   facts, varying opinions, and experiences. When you

get  personal with follow up 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   replies, I think that you have gone too far and it 

stifles the  openess. 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   Please be more considerate.

 

 I made what I  felt were some very positive comments

about the Lighting 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   including:

 

 -  Lower fuel costs

 - Great looks

 - Smooth Jabiru

 - Faster build  time

 

 I don't take back the negatives - those are how I

feel. I was  honest and 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   clear in making the negatives comparing with the

Esqual. I hope  that the 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   Lightning succeeds. Sometime I hope to get a ride in

 one.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Bottom line, it is ok to disagree, just don't get 

personal.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Jack

 

 

 

 

 


	




__________________________________________________

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Hey John,  How do you know Doug doesn't know your sisters?  He  really gets around....  and around..... and around.  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz

  [quote][b]

cjk129(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

Do we have a telephone number for even one of the sisters? 



Colin K.

OK

sky2000diver(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:41 am Post subject: RV-9A v. Lightening

This is really hurting my feelings, and they assured

me they dont know any of you. Shaniqua may get around

but she already has 4 boyfriends and a husband. Shes

too busy for any of you guys! ! !

--- owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com

<N1BZRich(at)aol.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hey John,  How do you know Doug doesn't know your

sisters?  He  really gets 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   around....  and around..... and around.  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz


	




__________________________________________________

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

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