[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: REFLECTOR: Re: [c-a] Lightning strike


First I agree that glass airplanes are no more prone to strikes than others.
In fact, possibly less prone.

I have seen your 'pinhole' points of exit on spam cans without static wicks
due to static buildup/discharge. I have never seen a lightning strike result
in a pinhole exit. I am not sure what lightning strike spam cans you've see,
but I have had to repair beachball size explosions in tails of King Airs and
twin Cessnas.....definitely not a pretty sight!  My personal experience
repairing tail and wing sections and electrical systems on spam cans Vs: my
reading and hearing about lightning strikes in fiberglass planes would lend me
to believe that, at least from a damage/repair standpoint, if it is going to
happen.....better ones Velocity than say their Bonanza! 
Andy supported at least in part this opinion with his price of repair

Lets carry this discussion a bit further. Composite aircraft are essentially
flying static wicks. The difference between a spam can and a composite
aircraft is that static buildup typically builds up then dissipates in
localized points on spam cans. Ideally these points are predetermined by
selective installing static wicks (carbon fiber) mechanically attached to a
metal surface. Static dissipation on a fiberglass plane can occur like a
washing action over the entire surface. I does not always seek a central
location for discharge.

The thing that is interesting to me here is that this particular lightning
strike was ground based. "What if" it was a car with an antenna instead of a
Velocity winglet sitting on that ramp at that location that day? 

Safe and speedy construction....