Glasair III for the win

txflyer said:
I don't see them listing a ceiling ... :confused:

http://www.glasairaviation.com/glasairspecs.html

The few owners I've talked to have all confirmed it is a true 250knot airplane.
Click to expand...

If it's a 250 knot aircraft, then this guy is selling himself short. I am skeptical....

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...II-RG/1995-GLASAIR-GLASAIR-III-RG/1205955.htm

Even this one, supposedly "the best" (and likely overpriced), having 350hp, only claims a 230kt cruise....

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...II-RG/1997-GLASAIR-GLASAIR-III-RG/1224651.htm
 
Last edited:
Go with this.

4a8aqa3y.jpg

u2u7u5ut.jpg


All metal and 245 knots at 8000. SX-300
 
Given the E/AB status of these aircraft, what can be done as far as de-ice/anti-ice? Since these are fast "traveling machines" I'm surprised you don't see more builders try and do something in this area...
 
Never flown one, but I remember being mightily impressed with the outstanding performance by Bob Herendeen at Oshkosk when Stoddard was marketing the airplane...2500ft loops with 300mph entry speed. It was like an RV-4 was crossed with a P-51.
Agree with the need for good training.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've flown the Glasair III, and it's a double-handful -- take a 172 pilot and put him/her in one, and the plane will be 20 miles in front of them for a long time. In many ways, it reminds me of flying the F-16. Lose the engine in the pattern, and you're pretty well hosed, since once you put the gear/flaps down, it takes 2000 feet vertically to make a 180-degree turn. Speed control on final is absolutely critical -- a bit slow and the bottom falls out, a bit fast and you're off the far end of the runway.

Make sure you are really prepared to move into a very hot airplane and get training from someone who knows the airplane well. FWIW, PIC used to have a contract with Glasair to do Glasair III training for new owners.
Click to expand...

With respect, the Glasair III is a high performance airplane but if you can fly a bonanza you can handle a Glasair III. I have limited time in a 3 and over a hundred hours in a glasair IFT. In many ways the GIII is easier to fly. It's a very manageable and honest airplane. Mine is nearing completion and it will be powered by an io540 producing about 350hp. Hot rod? Yes. Manageable? Abosulutely.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    734.2 KB · Views: 36
Velocity173 said:
Yeah all the cruise speeds I've read have said anything from 220 - 240 kts.
Click to expand...

Glasairs are fast. My Glasair IFT cruised at 165knots with fixed gear, fixed pitch prop and only 150hp. My Glasair III with 350hp will cruise around 230knots. Jeff Lavelle, racing his glasair just qualified at Reno at 403mph! His horsepower is just a little higher I would guess!
 
dans2992 said:
If it's a 250 knot aircraft, then this guy is selling himself short. I am skeptical....

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...II-RG/1995-GLASAIR-GLASAIR-III-RG/1205955.htm

Even this one, supposedly "the best" (and likely overpriced), having 350hp, only claims a 230kt cruise....

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...II-RG/1997-GLASAIR-GLASAIR-III-RG/1224651.htm
Click to expand...



He's stating a 10g.p.h. cruise. If you fly with the black knob all the way forward, you'll get 250knots and more like 15g.p.h. out of them.

I would pour the fuel to them as much as they'll take it, and turn the prop up. I want it to burn and get every knot baby! That's what we B talkin' bout! :rockon:

Econocruise and Glasair should not be in the same sentence with each other. :no:

hqdefault.jpg


IMG_2168m_800_copy.jpg
 
Todd Copeland said:
Glasairs are fast. My Glasair IFT cruised at 165knots with fixed gear, fixed pitch prop and only 150hp. My Glasair III with 350hp will cruise around 230knots. Jeff Lavelle, racing his glasair just qualified at Reno at 403mph! His horsepower is just a little higher I would guess!
Click to expand...


Yeah my I FT gets 165-170 KTAS. I've got 160 HP running a CS prop. Still, I want a plane that breaks the 200 kt barrier. Someday. :)
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think there's such a thing as an AD on an E-AB aircraft.
Click to expand...

Part 39 compliance is mandatory in the new letters of limitation. As is Compliance with FAR 43-D for the compliance inspection requirements.

but of course if none of the appliances are off the shelf where would the AD come from?
 
txflyer said:
I'd put my piloting skills up against a S.W. airline pilot any day of the week.
Click to expand...
The one SWA pilot I knew well went to them after three years with the Blue Angels (one year announcer, one year opposing solo, one year lead solo). Before that he was top of the greenie board aboard USS Kitty Hawk. When he wasn't flying 737's, he flew the BD-5J in a ton of airshows. Sure you want to make that bet? :D
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah all the cruise speeds I've read have said anything from 220 - 240 kts.
Click to expand...
With a turbocharged engine, 250 KTAS up high is possible. Down low with a more typical nonturbocharged 310HP engine, we're talking more like 230 KTAS. But that's still bloody fast if you've been flying fixed gear Cessna singles (the 350 and 400 not really being Cessnas).
 
dans2992 said:
Given the E/AB status of these aircraft, what can be done as far as de-ice/anti-ice? Since these are fast "traveling machines" I'm surprised you don't see more builders try and do something in this area...
Click to expand...
Putting boots on would probably bugger up the aerodynamics which make it so fast, and the wing is so slick on these that I'd be very, very wary of getting into any ice at all.
 
Todd Copeland said:
With respect, the Glasair III is a high performance airplane but if you can fly a bonanza you can handle a Glasair III.
Click to expand...
I've trained people in both, and there's no way I'd let someone with only Bonanza time hop into a Glasair III and go fly. The aerodynamics are much too different. They'd probably not need as much training as a 172 pilot, but they would not be "twice around the patch and you're good to go," either.
 
I recently went up for a ride I a III, I don't know the specs were but a low approach at 275mph was nothing short of amazing. I do know that he flight plans for 210kts conservatively and beats it every time. An amazing aircraft for sure, and it defiantly commands respect. I'd love to own one someday but as a 150hr piper archer pilot it's a bit too hot for me right now. That's why I decided to look for a Grumman Cheetah/Tiger and hopefully transition into this dream machine after I build some hours in something other than a forgiving archer.
 
txflyer said:
You mean a bus driver?

I'd put my piloting skills up against a S.W. airline pilot any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that former air show pilot/ US Aerobatic Team member/ current Red Bull Air Race pilot Kirby Chambliss was a S.W. driver also before he went full-time acro...

Obviously, I don't know your skills/abilities- maybe you're the next big thing?
 
az350x said:
I'm fairly sure that former air show pilot/ US Aerobatic Team member/ current Red Bull Air Race pilot Kirby Chambliss was a S.W. driver also before he went full-time acro...

Obviously, I don't know your skills/abilities- maybe you're the next big thing?
Click to expand...


Maybe so. I should have added my back country pilot skills. I don't know how to fly a 747, so I guess that makes us even. :lol:

What a bunch of frady-cats we have in here. I respect aircraft and all, but I'm not afraid of them... CFI's can be the worst of the lot. I've never met one that did not automatically assume everyone besides them is just a smoking hole waiting to happen. One crazy idiot CFI called on the phone to my house and told my wife our 180 was going to kill me back before I bought it. That was 300 hours and 500 landings ago. I gave him a piece of my mind at the time, and referred any further concerns of his to our attorney(s). He was spreading B.S. around making it difficult for me to find a CFI to get some dual time in type. Besides, you don't call up and talk to a man's wife like that in TX. You talk to the man, not the wife. What a superior minded butthead that guy was.

I mention Glasair III, and mostly get "you'll poke your eye out" from the majority here. Like it's automatically assumed I'm too stupid to know I will need training. No, I'm just going to jump in, turn the key, and fly straight into the ground.

Don't recruit astronauts here. There's not enough right stuff ..... :no:

yea0-008a.gif



I'll be seein' y'all in my rear view .... :blueplane:

C-GGTM-Glasair-III-2.jpg
 
Ron Levy said:
Putting boots on would probably bugger up the aerodynamics which make it so fast, and the wing is so slick on these that I'd be very, very wary of getting into any ice at all.
Click to expand...

Certainly wouldn't want boots on that thing.

If anything I'd be looking for an electric de ice option like ThermX with a hot prop

2e49653.jpg
 
txflyer said:
What a bunch of frady-cats we have in here. I respect aircraft and all, but I'm not afraid of them... CFI's can be the worst of the lot.


I mention Glasair III, and mostly get "you'll poke your eye out" from the majority here. Like it's automatically assumed I'm too stupid to know I will need training. No, I'm just going to jump in, turn the key, and fly straight into the ground.
Click to expand...

I expressed some concern over the wing loading. The most notorious plane for high wing loading is the MU-2 and it has around a 50 or something. Looking at the Bonanza A36 which would be a comparable albeit slower version of the III from the certificated world they go to 20. With the tip extensions the III gets the wing loading down to 27.5, but with the generous Fowler flaps on the Bo down they get the wing loading down to about 18 for landing config.

Obviously, wing loading affects speed, but at the cost of landing speed. One of the most pernicious problems we have in GA is the stall-spin problem at low altitude. On the negative side, the high wing loading will put the plane in the wheelhouse for stall-spin, and on the plus side, it being aerobatic it's very maneuverable so may be recoverable in the event of an incipient stall at low alt. If any airplane screams for an AOA gauge I would say it's the Glasair-III
 
docmirror said:
Looking at the Bonanza A36 which would be a comparable albeit slower version of the III from the certificated
Click to expand...
Hardly comparable. The Glasair III's airfoil is a lot sharper than the Bonanza's. The stall is much sharper with less aerodynamic warning, and it requires a much more positive recovery, with more altitude lost in the process. I doubt the Glasair III could come close to passing the FAA's stall, spin, stability, and handling certification requirements for a light single engine airplane.

Not saying it's dangerous, or scary, or anything like that, just different.
 
docmirror said:
I expressed some concern over the wing loading. The most notorious plane for high wing loading is the MU-2 and it has around a 50 or something. Looking at the Bonanza A36 which would be a comparable albeit slower version of the III from the certificated world they go to 20. With the tip extensions the III gets the wing loading down to 27.5, but with the generous Fowler flaps on the Bo down they get the wing loading down to about 18 for landing config.

Obviously, wing loading affects speed, but at the cost of landing speed. One of the most pernicious problems we have in GA is the stall-spin problem at low altitude. On the negative side, the high wing loading will put the plane in the wheelhouse for stall-spin, and on the plus side, it being aerobatic it's very maneuverable so may be recoverable in the event of an incipient stall at low alt. If any airplane screams for an AOA gauge I would say it's the Glasair-III
Click to expand...



I suspect all these rich boys flying around in their MU's are self insured on the hull. I don't see how any insurance company would touch one after all the talk and bad rap they've garnered.

Many aircraft must be flying without hull insurance as high as it is. Even for a timed and in type pilot, many planes are a one-off, and not repairable by the standard's of a Cessna for instance.

We just looked at a gorgeous General Avia F22C Penguino. I would buy it, but it's almost a one of a kind, and the only one registered in the U.S.A. Bill White said no-go on hull insurance. Forget it, unless you want to pay $5K per year. If you dent it, you can't find anything for it. Plus, the CFI owner does not want to do the transition training, so no deal. Here he is a CFI, and the only CFI with any time in that type, but he balks on signing a logbook.:confused:

So what's up with CFI's retaining their certificates, but not training or taking any liability on anything? Why bother keeping it then?
 
Ron Levy said:
Hardly comparable. The Glasair III's airfoil is a lot sharper than the Bonanza's. The stall is much sharper with less aerodynamic warning, and it requires a much more positive recovery, with more altitude lost in the process. I doubt the Glasair III could come close to passing the FAA's stall, spin, stability, and handling certification requirements for a light single engine airplane.

Not saying it's dangerous, or scary, or anything like that, just different.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for your snark mr 'hardly comparable'. I was just trying to find something close to the weight and engine of the GIII, not down to the aero engineering details. It was a general comparison on hauling capacity, and power, not an in depth analysis of the characteristics of the wing.

So, I stand by my statement that they are comparable from the certified point of view, with the obvious exception that the EXP plane is 'not certified'.
 
txflyer said:
My mission:

Aerobatic
Fast
X-country
Supported and in production
Reasonable ongoing cost: maintenance, etc...
Parts and components availability
Re-sale
Insurability
Click to expand...

Aerobatic Bonanza.

Sure, the aerobatic version isn't still in production, but I'm assuming you're concerned about parts support, which I doubt is an issue.

And then, you'll have everyone saying "Awesome!" instead of "You'll shoot your eye out!" ;)
 
The type-rating-like training now required for MU-2 drivers has worked as the FAA hoped and many observers predicted. It has now become one of the safer planes in the T/P fleet, and since the ongoing training is mandatory, most insurance companies offer coverage at rates similar to others.



txflyer said:
I suspect all these rich boys flying around in their MU's are self insured on the hull. I don't see how any insurance company would touch one after all the talk and bad rap they've garnered.

Many aircraft must be flying without hull insurance as high as it is. Even for a timed and in type pilot, many planes are a one-off, and not repairable by the standard's of a Cessna for instance.

We just looked at a gorgeous General Avia F22C Penguino. I would buy it, but it's almost a one of a kind, and the only one registered in the U.S.A. Bill White said no-go on hull insurance. Forget it, unless you want to pay $5K per year. If you dent it, you can't find anything for it. Plus, the CFI owner does not want to do the transition training, so no deal. Here he is a CFI, and the only CFI with any time in that type, but he balks on signing a logbook.:confused:

So what's up with CFI's retaining their certificates, but not training or taking any liability on anything? Why bother keeping it then?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The type-rating-like training now required for MU-2 drivers has worked as the FAA hoped and many observers predicted. It has now become one of the safer planes in the T/P fleet, and since the ongoing training is mandatory, most insurance companies offer coverage at rates similar to others.
Click to expand...


Well they sure are popular with a very niche crowd. I know two or three of them at our field, that stay in the air quite a bit. They must be blazing fast, or fit certain mission's very well.

I'd fly one if you gave it to me, but I'll also try to fly a bicycle with wings on it, if it'll fly. :D I'm kinda crazy like that. :rockon:

Big Daddy wants an aerobatic speed demon to park next to his bush plane. :cheers:


Reno-2012-Jeff-LaVelle-Glasair-III-Saturday-9.15.12-Heat-3A-Pylon-8.jpg
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Aerobatic Bonanza.

Sure, the aerobatic version isn't still in production, but I'm assuming you're concerned about parts support, which I doubt is an issue.

And then, you'll have everyone saying "Awesome!" instead of "You'll shoot your eye out!" ;)
Click to expand...


I would love an aerobatic Beech. Then I could be part of the clique, ... the 'in' crowd.:rolleyes:

But **** THAT!:rockon: I've always been too rebellious. I like beer and swing instead of wine and bling. :D:

And you cheated on one of the mission profile's for a Beechcraft.

FAST! ;)
 
How much slower are the long wing slotted flaps glasairs? What would it cost to add a BRS?

I really like the glasair designs. But the Vso is a little high for me, considering it is a single. Off field landings, ditching and the other stuff that happens if the fan quits become considerably more dangerous.

The long wing slotted flaps glasairs have Vso that is comparable to the rest of the GA singles.

That said - they look like a hell of a lot of fun, and if the plane is properly built including fuel systems and a standard GA motor used in certified equipment I would consider buying/owning one.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
How much slower are the long wing slotted flaps glasairs? What would it cost to add a BRS?

I really like the glasair designs. But the Vso is a little high for me, considering it is a single. Off field landings, ditching and the other stuff that happens if the fan quits become considerably more dangerous.

The long wing slotted flaps glasairs have Vso that is comparable to the rest of the GA singles.

That said - they look like a hell of a lot of fun, and if the plane is properly built including fuel systems and a standard GA motor used in certified equipment I would consider buying/owning one.
Click to expand...
The long wing actually gives slightly better cruise at altitude. The slotted flaps have a negligible impact on speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top