I recently had a disconcerting conversation with an engineer. Like me, he was also a flight enthusiast. Unlike me, he was not thrilled with my dreams of fast glass. (For the record, I didn't mention any specific model--I just told him I was looking at a cross-country cruiser and an amphib. Because of this, I know he didn't have any bad experiences and was biased against them.) Later I learned why he was dismayed. It was not because of the composite construction--it was because of the epoxy that we use for the structural adhesive. When I asked him what he meant, he told me that he had published a paper on it. He then proceeded to tell me about how epoxy is hard, brittle, and porous (on a microscopic level). The first trait I thought was a good idea. The second two I wasn't too sure about. He explained to me that the issue that worried him was fatigue. NOT of the composite structure but the epoxy itself. In a traditional metal aircraft, you can x-ray structures to determine their state of fatigue and replace the hinge pins, bolts, etc if needed. He said that you can not do this w/ the epoxy. In a nutshell <these types of joints don't fail little by 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 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 to afford one of these aircraft at some point in the future and this was not at 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 chemical engineer>

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

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

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

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

Any info and help will be greatly appreciated,

Adam

<I changed my email address from 225PT due to spam..>