The article sure doesn't inspire confidence in the design and I've heard that the Legacy is a whole other animal, probably a redesign to fix these short comings in what should be a hobby/amateur design, not a challenge for military test pilots. What scares me most is those landing speeds. Are you saying that you shoot to touch down at 90kts, or 103mph? If that is the case, that does not bode well for surviving an off field, forced landing. Has anybody tried vortex generators to try to get the landing speeds down?
The Glasair is looking better and better, but even there I have questions. The long wing Glasair might be the ticket, but even there I'd like to hear real world numbers first.
That article is discouraging but you cannot believe everything you read. Look at the accident reports of Lancairs and know that a large proportion of them occur with pilots who have low time in type. Consider this article was written due to an accident by a friend of a pilot with, what, 14 hours in type?
Yes, the Lancair has very extremely light stick force and necessary stick travel for the resulting effect in the elevator to produce dramatic change in the vertical, but you get used to that.
Yes, it takes practice to stay ahead of the plane. The Lancair instructor taught me to downwind 120 kts, base turn 110 kts, final turn 100 kts, cross numbers at 90 kts. I have since decreased that to 75-80 kts over the numbers. Stall speed is 55 kts in landing configuration but if you get too slow the sink rate goes up excessively.
Yes, it is easy to get into a PIO as the pilot in the article did. This is likely due to multiple factors. The tires are so small they are sold at tractor supply for lawnmowers (yes, they have what you need out there...). The tire pressure must be kept high - around 45 plus psi or they have a tendency to flex on landing pinching the tube resulting in flats. The landing gear even with the optional shocks has very little travel. The elevator (at least on my small tail) lacks authority to hold the nose off the ground once the mains touch, thus if you do not touchdown very flat and just above stall you are going to bounce. The nose sits high resulting in zero forward visibility over the nose in the flare. This amounts to very unforgiving landing characteristics.
It is a very capable IFR cross country machine contrary to what the author of that article would have you believe. You just need good transition training and practice.
The glide ratio on the Lancair is 13:1 I believe with a best glide speed of 104 kts. I have read the Glasair is much lower glide ratio in the neighborhood of 7:1 I think.
A Glasair is a better machine in some aspects; it just depends on your priorities. If safety in an engine out is your priority then neither is good but the Glasair is most certainly better. This is more so true if you get a Glasair with extended wingtips and slotted flaps. If I were to have complete engine failure at 10,000 agl directly over an airport, I cannot say with certainty I would not either come up short or have an overrun. This is due to the Lancairs lack of slip effectiveness, lack of speed brakes, lack of a bellyboard, small flaps, and high landing speed which consumes runway. While I have been in shorter, I typically use 3000 foot runway as a minimum during the day and 4500 foot at night.
Yes, the legacy fixed a few issues. Larger tires and increased strut travel, taller gear legs affording more level attitude on the ground and better over the nose visibility, larger cabin and of course more power / speed.