I recently had a disconcerting conversation with an engineer. Like = me, he was=20 also a flight enthusiast. Unlike me, he was not thrilled with my dreams = of fast=20 glass. (For the record, I didn't mention any specific model--I just told = him I=20 was looking at a cross-country cruiser and an amphib. Because of this, I = know he=20 didn't have any bad experiences and was biased against them.) Later I = learned=20 why he was dismayed. It was not because of the composite = construction--it was=20 because of the epoxy that we use for the structural adhesive. When I = asked him=20 what he meant, he told me that he had published a paper on it. He then = proceeded=20 to tell me about how epoxy is hard, brittle, and porous (on a = microscopic=20 level). The first trait I thought was a good idea. The second two I = wasn't too=20 sure about. He explained to me that the issue that worried him was = fatigue. NOT=20 of the composite structure but the epoxy itself. In a traditional metal=20 aircraft, you can x-ray structures to determine their state of fatigue = and=20 replace the hinge pins, bolts, etc if needed. He said that you can not = do this=20 w/ the epoxy. In a nutshell <these types of joints don't fail little = by=20 little. When they fail, they fail catastrophically and we have no way of = determining when that will be>. I don't know if he is talking about=20 delamination or what--I'm still a low-time PP.

Can anyone explain these views to me? I've been thinking about how to = be able=20 to afford one of these aircraft at some point in the future and this was = not at=20 all what I was wanting to hear. I see four basic options.

1). My friend just didn't have much experience with airframes. <he = is a=20 chemical engineer>

2). He is wrong about these structural properties. <which I don't = agree=20 with--he does make these chemicals>

3). He is correct about the nature of the materials. He is incorrect = about=20 their affects on airframe cohesion and those traits only show up on the=20 microscopic level.

4). He is correct about everything <including these airplanes have = no=20 value after ten years. he said he knows a pilot that was given one, = <not a=20 Lancair or Aerocomp> flew it once, and then grounded it and sold = it>> ,=20 and these are not safe systems of construction.

I do not believe that option four is correct. If it is, that would = mean that=20 several thousand pilots <and several hundred companies> have = simply=20 ignored a safety risk of a very large magnitude. I also believe that FAA = would=20 have outlawed such systems as a "significant safety risk". I sincerely = hope it=20 is the second option--I've been dreaming about one day owning these = beautiful=20 aircraft since day 3 of my primary flight training.

Any info and help will be greatly appreciated,

Adam