 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
malann(at)bigfoot.com.au
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: Esqual/Lightning ramblings |
 |
|
Hi folks,
I have been following the recent discussion about accident histories with great interest as it tells something about the inherent design qualities of the aircraft. The Esqual(and Lightning) appear to be a very robust design. The basic wing mounting design with intermeshing spars is a design used for at least 50 years in gliders and since the early days of fiberglass gliders. With fiberglass glider wings the metal fittings have been a problem with metal fatigue on some gliders. It is almost unheard of for a wing to come off or the spar to fail( unless the spar pin is accidentally left out) There is a story many years ago of a glider landing after a short flight and the wings falling off on the ground run after the spar pin had be forgotten. With the fiberglass itself, a major problem in Australia has been gelcoat covered fiberglass. Some European gel coats lacked sufficient wax and became brittle and cracked with age, the cracks propagating down into the glass structure. Very costly to remedy. Painting has recently been the preferred option for hot climates.
I have an Esqual with the early wing. I can understand why the wing was changed. Mine is finished to glider standards to retain a very accurate profile and surface finish, but it is very unforgiving and has a high stall speed but goes. Speed always has a price. A good dose of insects along the leading edge brings the stall speed down-natures vortex generators.
I have been looking around for my next project, so obviously the Lightning is very much in consideration. One problem I have is the lack of a structural cruising speed for either aircraft. With the very strong thermals and turbulence we can experience in Australia, by default the max rough airspeed becomes the maneuvering speed. I love boring holes in the sky at “warpdrive” speed. However in the absence of a structural cruising speed, a high VNE is irrelevant if 80% of my flying is done in turbulent conditions. It is okay to say no one has never had a problem, but I have no desire to experiment briefly with wingless flight no matter how remote the chance. There was an excellent article in the RAA magazine(Aust) some months ago. A popular European designed plane flown at 75% power and 100knots could expect to maybe loose a wing every 1 million hours(similar to "type certified" aircraft). In Australia that same aircraft flown at the same speeds could expect to loose a wing every 5000 hrs. Very sobering. An aeronautical engineer had calculated its structural cruising speed to be less than the maneuvering speed.
My Esqual has the early flat spring steel undercarriage that is built like the proverbial “brick outhouse” and I had not been impressed with the tapered legs fitted to the later Esquals and Lightnings. However I have changed my mind after recently seeing an Esqual that was dumped very heavily on landing. I must say that there was no one weak spot in the undercarriage. All of the bits gave a little. Most of the wheel studs had partially or wholly stripped out of the hub. The rear wheel rims were not deformed but had started to crack around the remaining bolts. The front rim was okay in spite of bending the side plates and the leg. All of the undercarriage legs(front and back) were bent over their entire length. The axles were okay as were the transition points where the axles join the legs. Very well engineered. The plane did 2 more landings, the pilots unaware of the damage.
After repairs it was on it’s trip home and shed a prop blade. In the ensuring landing the plane hit a ditch and totaled everything forward of the firewall and yet the engine frame mounting points on the fuse suffered no damage. It was amazing to see the destruction of the chrome moly engine mount. It must have absorbed a lot of the crash forces.
After seeing Dennis Borchardt’s kit(the Australian agent) I think the Lightning has started from an excellent base(the Esqual) and improved on it. There are some things I don’t like about it, inadequate fuel capacity for one, On the other had it has a much better useful load. But all planes are a compromise. There will never be the perfect plane. Some are just better compromises than others.
Regards,
Malcolm Ferguson
<malann(at)bigfoot.com.au>
| | - 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: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Esqual/Lightning ramblings |
|
|
One note on fuel quantity, yes we do carry less fuel, with a total of 22 gallons , however our cruise speed more than offsets the need to carry more fuel. There are compromises in that the more fuel the lower the useful load and so on, so i think the lightning is good middle of the road in that department, enough fuel to easily fly for 3.5 hours(at) 170 mph and well if we don't mind 150 or so that the esqual cruises at we can fly for 4- 4.5 hours so not much different there, just a few thoughts..
Nick Otterback
Production manager
nn(at)bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi folks,
I have been following the recent discussion about accident histories with great interest as it tells something about the inherent design qualities of the aircraft. The Esqual(and Lightning) appear to be a very robust design. The basic wing mounting design with intermeshing spars is a design used for at least 50 years in gliders and since the early days of fiberglass gliders. With fiberglass glider wings the metal fittings have been a problem with metal fatigue on some gliders. It is almost unheard of for a wing to come off or the spar to fail( unless the spar pin is accidentally left out) There is a story many years ago of a glider landing after a short flight and the wings falling off on the ground run after the spar pin had be forgotten. With the fiberglass itself, a major problem in Australia has been gelcoat covered fiberglass. Some European gel coats lacked sufficient wax and became brittle and cracked with age, the cracks propagating down into the glass structure. Very costly to remedy. Painting has recently been the preferred option for hot climates.
I have an Esqual with the early wing. I can understand why the wing was changed. Mine is finished to glider standards to retain a very accurate profile and surface finish, but it is very unforgiving and has a high stall speed but goes. Speed always has a price. A good dose of insects along the leading edge brings the stall speed down-natures vortex generators.
I have been looking around for my next project, so obviously the Lightning is very much in consideration. One problem I have is the lack of a structural cruising speed for either aircraft. With the very strong thermals and turbulence we can experience in Australia, by default the max rough airspeed becomes the maneuvering speed. I love boring holes in the sky at “warpdrive” speed. However in the absence of a structural cruising speed, a high VNE is irrelevant if 80% of my flying is done in turbulent conditions. It is okay to say no one has never had a problem, but I have no desire to experiment briefly with wingless flight no matter how remote the chance. There was an excellent article in the RAA magazine(Aust) some months ago. A popular European designed plane flown at 75% power and 100knots could expect to maybe loose a wing every 1 million hours(similar to "type certified" aircraft). In Australia that same aircraft flown at the same speeds could expect to loose a wing every 5000 hrs. Very sobering. An aeronautical engineer had calculated its structural cruising speed to be less than the maneuvering speed.
My Esqual has the early flat spring steel undercarriage that is built like the proverbial “brick outhouse” and I had not been impressed with the tapered legs fitted to the later Esquals and Lightnings. However I have changed my mind after recently seeing an Esqual that was dumped very heavily on landing. I must say that there was no one weak spot in the undercarriage. All of the bits gave a little. Most of the wheel studs had partially or wholly stripped out of the hub. The rear wheel rims were not deformed but had started to crack around the remaining bolts. The front rim was okay in spite of bending the side plates and the leg. All of the undercarriage legs(front and back) were bent over their entire length. The axles were okay as were the transition points where the axles join the legs. Very well engineered. The plane did 2 more landings, the pilots unaware of the damage.
After repairs it was on it’s trip home and shed a prop blade. In the ensuring landing the plane hit a ditch and totaled everything forward of the firewall and yet the engine frame mounting points on the fuse suffered no damage. It was amazing to see the destruction of the chrome moly engine mount. It must have absorbed a lot of the crash forces.
After seeing Dennis Borchardt’s kit(the Australian agent) I think the Lightning has started from an excellent base(the Esqual) and improved on it. There are some things I don’t like about it, inadequate fuel capacity for one, On the other had it has a much better useful load. But all planes are a compromise. There will never be the perfect plane. Some are just better compromises than others.
Regards,
Malcolm Ferguson
<malann(at)bigfoot.com.au>
:58 AM
|
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? [url= http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news] Find a flick[/url] in no time
with the[url= http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news]Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.[/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 |
|
|
EAFerguson(at)AOL.COM
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: Esqual/Lightning ramblings |
|
|
Malcolm,
The Lightning is indeed a great Ferguson built aircraft.
Earl Ferguson
N17EF
Atlanta, GA USA
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
[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 |
|
|
|
|
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
