Truly terrible Lancair

[planedriver]

A little disappointing you didn't get a shot of the beautiful orange & blue beast next to it.......

Sounds like I missed something good dutch.

Loved the beautifully restored Tiger Moth opposite it though, it looked almost brand new. They were the only two aircraft in the hangar at the time I was shown around.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Sounds like I missed something good dutch.Loved the beautifully restored Tiger Moth opposite it though, it looked almost brand new. They were the only two aircraft in the hangar at the time I was shown around.

Ah....I must've been off flying somewhere!

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

I can only comment on stuff I have first hand experience with and accordingly I'd like to add a few comments further.. this time about the cirrus. I would agree that early on they did have a dubious honour of being over represented in fatal crashes and I would ague that this had a fair bit to do about the attitudes and airmanship of people who where flying them and I would compare this with the over representation of fatals associated with Beech Bonanza and Cessna 210 in their day.. With education comes safety.. so much so that they now have a fatal occurrence ratio of .42/100,000 hours compared to the venerable Cessna 172 of .45/100,000 hours which puts them into being one of the safest.

 

I would also point out that I've never had a problem flying them in or out of Wedderburn or Clifton or Tyagarah. Right now I'm trying to justify getting another one.

 

Ah, almost forgot Nick, G3/G5 are NOT experimental and your argument about souped up engines is groundless as the Lancairs for instance run stock engines (unless they're racing in Reno). Builders do however put engines in to suit how they want to fly and how much money they want to spend. and the vast majority are certified engines..

 

 

[nickduncs84]

I can only comment on stuff I have first hand experience with and accordingly I'd like to add a few comments further.. this time about the cirrus. I would agree that early on they did have a dubious honour of being over represented in fatal crashes and I would ague that this had a fair bit to do about the attitudes and airmanship of people who where flying them and I would compare this with the over representation of fatals associated with Beech Bonanza and Cessna 210 in their day.. With education comes safety.. so much so that they now have a fatal occurrence ratio of .42/100,000 hours compared to the venerable Cessna 172 of .45/100,000 hours which puts them into being one of the safest.I would also point out that I've never had a problem flying them in or out of Wedderburn or Clifton or Tyagarah. Right now I'm trying to justify getting another one.

Ah, almost forgot Nick, G3/G5 are NOT experimental and your argument about souped up engines is groundless as the Lancairs for instance run stock engines (unless they're racing in Reno). Builders do however put engines in to suit how they want to fly and how much money they want to spend. and the vast majority are certified engines..

Wasn't talking about cirrus. G3 as in glasair III. And I'm aware of all of that re engines in experimentals but my point remains. I wouldn't be comfortable in any single engine that stalls at 60 knots. They just aren't reliable enough. But when you combine that with a typical engine setup in planes like this where people are trying to extract every ounce of power, the risk goes up. Many of them have turbos, experimental ignition systems etc. its not the components that can be unsafe it's the installation and maintenance. Note that my opinion may be different if I was an expert in all those things, but I'm not. My point was that you have a lot of reliance on the engine with this type of plane, much more so than even a quick certified single like a mooney.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Ah, sorry Nick, thought you were talking about Cirrus G3.. (it was late when I wrote that last night) Anyway, further to your comments, there is no correlation between stall speed and safety.. You commented on feeling safer in a carbon cub than something that stalled at 60 plus knots, yet that particular aircraft has been involved in quite a few accidents (fatal) involving what I would describe as arrival stalls. I might add that I just don't fly so called high performance planes, but also enjoy the other end of the spectrum.. for example before I strapped on a Lancair, the only aircraft that I flew during the previous 12 months was the Skyfox.. so regardless of what plane you fly, if you fly it within the design specs, you can really enjoy the experience.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Ah, sorry Nick, thought you were talking about Cirrus G3.. (it was late when I wrote that last night) Anyway, further to your comments, there is no correlation between stall speed and safety.. You commented on feeling safer in a carbon cub than something that stalled at 60 plus knots, yet that particular aircraft has been involved in quite a few accidents (fatal) involving what I would describe as arrival stalls. I might add that I just don't fly so called high performance planes, but also enjoy the other end of the spectrum.. for example before I strapped on a Lancair, the only aircraft that I flew during the previous 12 months was the Skyfox.. so regardless of what plane you fly, if you fly it within the design specs, you can really enjoy the experience.

Looks to be some correlation to stall speed to me. I get what you're saying and agree that the vast majority of accidents are caused by pilot error, usually on the ground, but I think stall speed does have an influence. If all other factors remained constant and we looked only at stall speed, something that stalls at 60 knots has 4 times the energy to dissapate in a forced landing compared to something that stalls at 30 knots. Maybe it is irrational, but I wouldn't put my son in a Glasair no matter how much experience I had. I would put him in a cub. Like I said, I know there are many other factors that are much more likely to impact on the safety profile, but to me it's the ones I can't control that really scare me.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's how you operate it. (Environment and skill) to a great extent. The Mooney has plenty of wing, bit most are a bit underpowered. The Lancair has a reputation but a lot of it is with the pilot, but it is a plane that needs sealed strips with a bit of length and not suited to outlandings in a paddock as for one thing it has tiny wheels and brakes. From memory, a Bonanza at full weight needs well over 80knots as a manouvering glide speed. Speed doesn't directly affect glide angle, but when it hits something it's got all to do with the damage to occupants. Assuming you have a small headwind, a Cub or such will be doing about 30 knots G/S and the other types double that so 4 x the energy to dissipate. (Impact for the occupants) A heavier plane might even assist the occupants to survive, especially if a lot of the weight is in front of them. Nev

 

 

[roscoe74693]

It's how you operate it. (Environment and skill) to a great extent. The Mooney has plenty of wing, bit most are a bit underpowered. The Lancair has a reputation but a lot of it is with the pilot, but it is a plane that needs sealed strips with a bit of length and not suited to outlandings in a paddock as for one thing it has tiny wheels and brakes. From memory, a Bonanza at full weight needs well over 80knots as a manouvering glide speed. Speed doesn't directly affect glide angle, but when it hits something it's got all to do with the damage to occupants. Assuming you have a small headwind, a Cub or such will be doing about 30 knots G/S and the other types double that so 4 x the energy to dissipate. (Impact for the occupants) A heavier plane might even assist the occupants to survive, especially if a lot of the weight is in front of them. Nev

I have owned and flown a Lancair for three years. I can honestly say that it scared me to death when I heard how many crashes there have been with them shortly AFTER I bought mine. Ooops! Since then, I have grown to appreciate it for what it is - a fast traveling machine.

Yes, it does feel loose at low speeds. If you fly it by the numbers, it will not bite you, but also respect that you can get into an accelerated stall by pulling only slightly more Gs in this plane at slow speeds. It is very similar to the original Grumman Yankee in that respect.

 

There are two places where you can get into trouble. On the turn from base to final, don't overshoot. Just like they teach you in the military, if you overshoot this turn, it is a MANDATORY go around. If you try to tighten the turn at pattern speeds it will kill you. Don't do it.

 

The other thing is that the small tail (MkI) 320 does not have enough pitch stability in the flair. In this respect, they are similar to Cessna Cardinals. However, you will only bend a Cardinal. You will break a Lancair. The bigger tail (MKII) does not have this quirk. (On the Cardinal, they added leading edge slots to the stabilator to improve low speed effectiveness.

 

As long as you have a factory built wing (fast build), you probably won't find yourself upside down after a stall. If a good and straight build fixture was used on the wing, then you will be ok, but if there is any twist in the wing, the stall will be really nasty. This plane rolls really fast, and this is especially the case in an asymmetrical stall, when one wing stalls before the other.

 

Pilot skill...

 

Well, how do I say thiis? People with money are busy people usually and maybe more hard headed than the general population. They can buy expensive planes and feel ready to solo before they really are. Many just don't have time to stay current in a demanding plane. They should not fly these, but they do. That hurts the crash statistics. A Cessna is really not a good trainer. It will make you think that you are a good pilot when you are in fact a terrible pilot!

 

Go fly a Grumman. They are a much better plane to assess your flying skills in. Then if you have the right stuff......