Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

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

Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

vettin74(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

To the Group ...

   

  I recently recieved a forward from over the pond about the lightning, it was from one of the sport cruiser lists....The "chap" if you will said that the lightning was good looking but not nearly as sexy as the Sport cruiser ...very interesting...also that the perfromance specs for the lightning were impossible, with that old massey ferguson engine up front (must be a rotax driver talking about the jabiru). Just thought i would throw this out and see what the reaction was...

   

  Nick Otterback



nick otterback <vettin74(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

  [quote]    Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?

Check out Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?

 Check out [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-]new cars at Yahoo! Autos.[/url]  [quote][b]

Rick

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 113
Location: Colonial Beach, Virginia

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:17 am Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

Wait a minute----the guy said the Sport Cruiser LOOKED BETTER than the 

Lightning?



Methinks he be drinking too much ale to see correctly....'ya know, the "ooh 

what a hot babe" when drunk syndrome....then finding out he was looking at a 

Orangatang at the zoo....



Rick



_________________________________________________________________

Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. 

http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07

flying(at)qdea.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

I saw the Sport Cruiser at Sun and Fun, and was impressed with the 

published numbers compared to most of the other Light Sport entries.



It's an all-metal airplane built with traditional GA techniques. The 

33 mph (that's statue miles per hour) could be too good to be true, 

but it may be real.



The cruise speed of 138 mph is significantly better than almost all 

of the LSA entrants, and the baggage space is almost ample. Most 

LSA's spec a cruise of 110 to 115 mph.



It appears to be a darned nice airplane, and it's reasonably 

attractive. I'd keep one that someone gave me.



The guy I got a brochure from told me it was around $65,000, but I 

find that the sportaircraftworks.com web site lists a basic airframe 

with the 912 ULS 100 HP Rotax for $79,500.



But compared to a Lightning, I'd say the following:



- The Lightning is more attractive, sleeker, with better lines.



- The Lightning is way faster, or lower drag, with better fuel economy.



- The Lightning is less expensive.



- I still want a BRS chute without giving up useful load in the 

baggage area, though!



Hugh Sontag



 	  Quote: 	
		  To the Group ...



I recently recieved a forward from over the pond about the 

lightning, it was from one of the sport cruiser lists....The "chap" 

if you will said that the lightning was good looking but not nearly 

as sexy as the Sport cruiser ...very interesting...also that the 

perfromance specs for the lightning were impossible, with that old 

massey ferguson engine up front (must be a rotax driver talking 

about the jabiru). Just thought i would throw this out and see what 

the reaction was...



Nick Otterback

mark.stauffer1(at)gmail.c
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

Beer Goggles!! Don't ask how I know....... (and no, there were no Orangutans

were involved!!)



Mark



--

ultralight.flyer(at)gmail
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

ROTAX han?! Bombardier start its production consider several aplications from machines to cut the grass to airplanes. Thats a real fact that Bombardier ROTAX have more years of experience than Jabiru. I always thought that less moving parts means less problems. Lockeed won the contest with JSF against Boeing because of economy and other factors. They almost lost because of excessive moving parts of VTOL system applied. The grasshoopers or ROTAX propolsion systems use a reduction gear box, independent oil lubricant tank to water cooling system or water valve control axel, blá blá blá, lots of moving parts and confusion... and when we open the cowl it seams we're doctors in surgery block with an dead body opened to the sky. Jabiru was made for airplanes... its a bird. ROTAX is something noisy wich rotate somehow to go up in the air (not fly) or drag underground. Whatever needs an engine except for nice flying, would work with a ROTAX.. We call it DJ sample loop with sexy starts and stops. Seriously, i've respect alot Bombardier with all experience they have and the reliability of its engines... but honestly, it sounds like a truck. My apologies for all 18 weelers... PHONNNN PHONNNN... 

 

-- 

Miguel Maia de Loureiro

Ultralight Pilot Suport Services

Cel.: +351 91 419 21 04

e-Mail: ultralight.flyer(at)gmail.com (ultralight.flyer(at)gmail.com) 

  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

All,

     To my eye the Sport Cruiser is a dolled up Zenith  Zodiac 601.  In fact, I am pretty sure that the country and  company that now produces the Sport Cruiser was the same country and  company that had a contract to make a complete turn key Zodiac a few years  ago.  I think they improved the design in looks and a few structural  changes and are calling it a new airplane.  Yep, things like that do  occasionally happen.

     Based on flying a Zodiac 601 XL recently that our  EAA chapter built, I would not really doubt the Sport Cruiser performance claims  as far as stall and cruise speed.  Besides, the 601 I flew has a 3300  Jabiru engine.  And I am pretty sure the Sport Cruiser can be ordered with  a Jabiru.  However, the Sport Cruiser is certainly no Lightning  in any shape or form.  It does not look near as good and does not  perform anywhere  near the Lightning numbers.   

     But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder -  except in the case that Rick mentioned where the "beholder" has had a few too  many drinks.  Then again, maybe the Sport Cruiser guy had the A-10  pilot's philosophy - "Go ugly early."  That does save them time at the bar,  but they often regret being seen with their date.  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

ajhauter(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

If the sport cruiser can cruise 138 and stall 33, that is a 4.2 cruise to stall ratio, you will be hard pressed to find anything above 4.0 that isn't sporting a jet engine.  I would say they made some significant improvements to the Zodiac.  

On May 7, 2007, at 7:13 PM, N1BZRich(at)aol.com (N1BZRich(at)aol.com) wrote:

[quote]  All,

     To my eye the Sport Cruiser is a dolled up Zenith Zodiac 601.  In fact, I am pretty sure that the country and company that now produces the Sport Cruiser was the same country and company that had a contract to make a complete turn key Zodiac a few years ago.  I think they improved the design in looks and a few structural changes and are calling it a new airplane.  Yep, things like that do occasionally happen.

     Based on flying a Zodiac 601 XL recently that our EAA chapter built, I would not really doubt the Sport Cruiser performance claims as far as stall and cruise speed.  Besides, the 601 I flew has a 3300 Jabiru engine.  And I am pretty sure the Sport Cruiser can be ordered with a Jabiru.  However, the Sport Cruiser is certainly no Lightning in any shape or form.  It does not look near as good and does not perform anywhere  near the Lightning numbers.   

     But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder - except in the case that Rick mentioned where the "beholder" has had a few too many drinks.  Then again, maybe the Sport Cruiser guy had the A-10 pilot's philosophy - "Go ugly early."  That does save them time at the bar, but they often regret being seen with their date.  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  	  Quote: 	
		  

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

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



	
[b]

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

"If the sport cruiser can cruise 138 and stall 33, that is a 4.2  cruise to 

stall ratio, you will be hard pressed to find anything  above 4.0 that isn't 

sporting a jet engine.  I would say they made  some significant improvements 

to the Zodiac."



Just a note.  If somebody put VG's on a non-LSA compliant airplane, it 

should be able to do 200+mph full throttle and stall at 40mph, that'd be a 

5:1.  Just a thought.  (A 33 mph stall is pretty impressive, but you aint 

getting it into and out of a field any shorter than a Lightning, and where I 

come from if you fly 33mph you're going backwards anyhow!)  Brian W.



_________________________________________________________________

Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01

dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

I just gotta respond to this.  Okay, I'm a little biased, but I've been 

around both planes.  In my eyes (and therefore the other dude is wrong) the 

Lightning is much sleeker and sexier looking than the Sport Cruiser.  The 

lines of the Lightning follow those of the Lancair or Cirrus.  I can 

remember being around when the Lightning was a bucket of parts sitting over 

in the corner.  I remember asking Nick what that was.  It looked fast even 

just as a fuselage sitting there.  I had been flying Esquals and this thing 

was kind of like an Esqual on steroids in my mind.  Well as the thing came 

into reality and we got to see the performance results and as I got to be 

one of the first to fly a Lightning (lucky bastard me) I found that it 

outflew the Esqual be leaps and bounds.  More than that it was more fun to 

fly than most airplanes that I know.  It isn't going to be as "stable" as 

something like a Bonanza, but it was designed to be a sport plane.  Some 

stability was traded for performance.  There's still plenty left though that 

it flies hands and feet off when trimmed up and does what you would expect 

out of a plane when you input your actions.  I just flew 5 hours today in a 

Lightning using only 2 fingers to fly it (and one once I got up off the 

deck!)



If you like those anorexic girls with the straight up and down profile, then 

have at the sportcruiser.  Me, I think a sexy lady has some curves.  You 

know, it's like the difference from being skinny, and being fit.  As far as 

I have seen there is NOTHING out there yet that is LSA complient with the 

looks.  Going outside of the LSA rule I don't know of many piston engine 

airplanes ever made that have these performance numbers.  There's faster, 

but they burn 2-3 times as much fuel for 30 more mph.  The Lightning was 

created to meet certain requirements and for a certain market.  It has met 

or exceeded every design goal that I know of.



As for the engine.  The Jabiru is what the Continental guys would come up 

with if they made an O-200 for the new century.  The engine is quit, 

extremely fuel efficient, non-complex, and smoooottthh.  Flying the Cirrus 

SR-22 G2 I found that it was a thrill as far as having mondo horsepower and 

going fast.  It wasn't much faster than a Lightning though, burned a whole 

lot more fuel, and one thing that I kept thinking was that this engine 

really shakes when you give it the throttle.  Not the Jabiru engine though.  

(not to try to take away from the Cirrus, still one of my favorite planes 

ever)



On a final note, the Arion guys think logically about how they can improve 

their design, keep the design simple to maintain, and increase efficiency.  

As Buz can verify, there's a secret R&D program through Arion in charge of 

thinking how they can do this or that.  There's a unique culture there of 

Yankees and Rednecks that somehow work well together.  You've heard of the 

Lockheed Skunk Works?  Well, I submit (representing the Redneck bunch) that 

the Arion design group be known henceforth as the "Polecat Works".    

Seriously, there's a place out in the desert, wierd things flying there!

   Brian W.



_________________________________________________________________

Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more.  Visit MSN In 

Concert today. http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline

ritchie(at)wave.co.nz
Guest

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: Lightning vs Sport Cruiser...

Hello Nick et al'

  I am new to the site in the last few weeks and have enjoyed learning more about the lightning through you fellows. I felt I had to respond to Nick's message about the sport cruiser. My mate down the road has been distributing the Zenair for a number of years and has now moved on to the Sportcruiser. He received his first aircraft (still the only one in the country) in mid December 06 and has sold 6 off it with 4 more conditional sales and 10 spots in the manufacturing line. Several aero clubs and training organizations are looking into the purchase of a sportcruiser for training purposes. His 16 prepaid spots are now being re-allocated further down the line due to manufacturing demands and he and clients are not happy chappies as you might appreciate. According to him there are ~500 planes on back order and although 1 a day is coming off the line it will be a while before u get a plane, at least in this country. I have flown in the plane twice the second time 600 miles from the North Island to the South Island here in New Zealand. The plane flown is pretty standard as per the web site specs, 100 hp rotax with 3 blade wood comp prop. Here are my thoughts and observations and please be aware that I do not have anywhere near the flying hours under my bum as some of you fellas... Yes it is a nice plane to look at with nice lines and visual aerodynamics. It attracts a lot of attention at our air shows and fly-ins. In my view the lightning is better in all respects. The wing is very large and accounts for the legitimate stall speeds of low 30's - high 20's. I have landed 6 times at ~ 30-34 mph. The thickness of the wing make the wing lockers feasible which are useful. The cockpit is enormous for a microlight. I have seen a 6'6" pilot/owner of a French microlight banbi, which he climbs into with the help of a very large shoehorn; sit in the sport cruiser with 4-5" of headroom to spare. He was surprised and a wee bit gob smacked himself. Storage behind the seats is also generous. On our trip to the South Island we carried the 2 of us ~ 180 lbs each, full fuel 30 gallons (130 litres). Behind the seats we stowed; 2 sleeping bags, 2 small suitcases, laptop, awning, 2 folding chairs. In the wing lockers we stowed; 36 cans (beer) 1 wing locker and various tie downs tools brochures, pamphlets and handouts in the other. In so many words we were as loaded as the specs suggest you should be and perhaps then some! Took off from a backyard grass strip in ~200 meters (620 ') and flew in tandem with a high wing Sportrider. At 3500' it was a bit bumpy so worked are way up to 9000' where it was a smooth fly. The flight south included a 45 minute flight over the open ocean. It was a smooth comfortable flight. A monitor of the instruments showed that we rarely achieved better than 100 kts indicated and with 5 kts head wind GS was considerably less varying between 86-94. On the trip south the Sportrider with the same engine prop set up consistently pulled away although it carried less weight. The pilot/owner has indicated he regularly cruises 110+ and with a constant speed prop he expects the 120 kts (138 mph). His next aircraft, due July, has a constant speed prop and glass panel so we will see! In my first demo flight of the cruiser I did not experience 110kts, more like 100-105 tops, and that was with 1/2 fuel 2 passengers and no other weight factors and dead calm conditions. I will be interested to see what the constant speed prop does. My personal opinion is that I do not expect that much difference and if 120 is achievable it is probably the max and a big push, certainly not a comfortable 65-75% cruise.

  I have been interested enough in this aircraft to have a friend with over 5000 hrs flying and multi type rated as well as chief instructor at a local flying school have a fly and give me his opinion. He is straight up. His initial opinion was "This is not a microlight it is an airplane!" I believe he would say the same re: the lightning and in fact more. He couldn’t get over how big the wings were for the size of the aircraft and commented no wonder it had such a low stall. He has privately told me the aircraft is very nice to fly with docile characteristics and would provide lots of enjoyment---  BUT--- the controls are not balanced. The elevators are far more sensitive than the ailerons. This is something I realized in retrospect as I flew the plane I found it very difficult at first to keep it straight and level. I just put this down to my low hours. He has said he has flown with me to often to accept that and in fact the plane just isn't set up right, not being balanced correctly. He suggested it may be as simple as adjusting controls or it may be more of a design issue. He has gone so far as to say that someone is going to get hurt or cause some structural damage to this plane due to the overly sensitive elevators. So that is my experience. I had a more or less standard plane priced up for night flying with a constant speed prop at $150,000 NZ. I believe it is safe to say the sportcruiser is a good aircraft, aside from the balance issue, and we will be seeing a lot of them in the air and on the ground here in NZ. I have decided it is not for me. Thanks to you fellas, Dennis in Aust. and some discussion with Nick I will be building a lightning. I am looking forward to the lightning as first of type in the country and fully expect my fellow Kiwis to come to appreciate its looks and performance as I do. Trust you find this useful. Cheers from Down Under 

Ron Ritchie

ritchie(at)wave.co.nz (ritchie(at)wave.co.nz)  



On 8/05/2007, at 7:02 AM, nick otterback wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  To the Group ...

   

  I recently recieved a forward from over the pond about the lightning, it was from one of the sport cruiser lists....The "chap" if you will said that the lightning was good looking but not nearly as sexy as the Sport cruiser ...very interesting...also that the perfromance specs for the lightning were impossible, with that old massey ferguson engine up front (must be a rotax driver talking about the jabiru). Just thought i would throw this out and see what the reaction was...

   

  Nick Otterback



nick otterback <vettin74(at)yahoo.com (vettin74(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		      Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?

Check out Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?

 Check out [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-]new cars at Yahoo! Autos.[/url]  	  Quote: 	
		  

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

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



	
	
	




 [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

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

Jump to:

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