Is a lancair IV safe for ex military pilot

C

captbilly

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
8
Display Name
Display name:
captbilly
I am an ex USAF pilot with substantial general aviation experience as well. I have owned several GA aircraft and now own a glass air ft. I am thinking about getting a LAncair IVp but have some concerns about safety. I suspect that I would not find the plane particularly challenging to fly after having flown much higher performance aircraft in the military but I do wonder about purely mechanical safety issues. Is the Lancair more likely to suffer an engine failure than other piston powered planes? Are there other issues of concern with the design?

I don't claim to be the best pilot in the world but I have flown many many hours is aircraft with approach speeds much higher than a Lancair so I don't see the performance envelope to be an issue. I also have many hours in fighter types that I am going to have to assume were much more "twitchy" than an Lancair. I can remember flying T-38s at high altitude (high 40s) where the slightest touch on the stick would result in several hundred feet of altitude change (and there was no autopilot, maybe they have since installed one), so the rule was to hold the stick with just your thumb and fingertips when you weren't doing across.

I remember reading an article a few years ago in which they looked at the accident stats for civilian owned jet fighters and trainers. It turned out that almost all the accidents in L-39, F-5, Migs, Alpha jets, etc. occurred when the pilot had no military flying experience. When flown by a pilot who had been trained by the USAF or USN, the accident rates were almost zero.

So the question is, assuming a well qualified pilot, is a Lancair IVp an inherently unsafe design.
 
captbilly said:
I am an ex USAF pilot with substantial general aviation experience as well. I have owned several GA aircraft and now own a glass air ft. I am thinking about getting a LAncair IVp but have some concerns about safety. I suspect that I would not find the plane particularly challenging to fly after having flown much higher performance aircraft in the military but I do wonder about purely mechanical safety issues. Is the Lancair more likely to suffer an engine failure than other piston powered planes? Are there other issues of concern with the design?

I don't claim to be the best pilot in the world but I have flown many many hours is aircraft with approach speeds much higher than a Lancair so I don't see the performance envelope to be an issue. I also have many hours in fighter types that I am going to have to assume were much more "twitchy" than an Lancair. I can remember flying T-38s at high altitude (high 40s) where the slightest touch on the stick would result in several hundred feet of altitude change (and there was no autopilot, maybe they have since installed one), so the rule was to hold the stick with just your thumb and fingertips when you weren't doing across.

I remember reading an article a few years ago in which they looked at the accident stats for civilian owned jet fighters and trainers. It turned out that almost all the accidents in L-39, F-5, Migs, Alpha jets, etc. occurred when the pilot had no military flying experience. When flown by a pilot who had been trained by the USAF or USN, the accident rates were almost zero.

So the question is, assuming a well qualified pilot, is a Lancair IVp an inherently unsafe design.
Click to expand...

IMO the only thing "unsafe" about any Lancair including the IV is the lack of CAR3 let alone 14CFR23 flight testing. As a result the flight characteristics and envelope edges are not particularly as safety oriented as the high performance spam cans. AFaIK the turbine powered IV-P is pretty much the worst of the bunch and the Legacy the best. A piston powered non-pressurized IV isn't too bad except that most if not all the owner/pilots I know are afraid to stall their's deliberately and land at a speed I consider a bit hot, mostly in an attempt to remain well clear of that corner of the envelope. As to the likelihood of an engine failure, most are powered by "nearly certified" engines, i.e. a production model with unapproved accessories (fuel injection, ignition, etc) and I'd expect that catastrophic mechanical failures occur with about the same frequency as they do with the same basic engine on a certified airplane. I guess there are some areas there which might be problematic in that the engine/prop combinations might not be anything that's been tested/analyzed for resonance issues and it's unlikely that the fuel delivery system design has seen the same kind of scrutiny afforded to a production airframe.

Bottom line, as long as the powerplant systems were reasonably well designed, implemented, and maintained I doubt there'd be a significant difference in failure rates but with the higher landing speeds coupled with no requirement to meet crashworthiness standards your personal survival chances are probably noticeably less in a Lancair IV than the average production airplane of similar performance (assuming there is such a thing).
 
captbilly said:
I remember reading an article a few years ago in which they looked at the accident stats for civilian owned jet fighters and trainers. It turned out that almost all the accidents in L-39, F-5, Migs, Alpha jets, etc. occurred when the pilot had no military flying experience. When flown by a pilot who had been trained by the USAF or USN, the accident rates were almost zero.
Click to expand...

Before you get too excited about that article, there was an L-39 that crashed outside of Vegas a week or two ago with 2 fatals. Pilot was former USAF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Bill- it handles like a Curtis P-40. I have some guest time in one. Pull the power off, the relative bricked-ness will make the T38 look like a sailplane. Wing loading is about the same as a P-40...power to weight is similar.

My view as to what is missing from the equation is the red handle manufactured by Martin-Baker. But aside from that, if you are OKAY with flying a P40 without a hotseat, just remember the engine fail checklist is very very short.

Former P3 guy. Now flies Mooneys, Senecas, etc and owns a FIKI Seneca.
 
Last edited:
I personally know a pilot that went through engine failure in his IV. He set down in a field, while having to duck under power lines at the last moment. The Lancair airframe remained intact, while internally shattered. In other words, it didn't break up, but won't be flying again.
 
I know they came out with the MkII tail for the two seater, did they for the IVP? I don't think you will have a problem with one either way. I got a ride in one with a 3 rotor 420hp 13B and free reign at altitude and if you are good with an 80 kt touch down with the nose up. As for the engine, run it as a 240ktas at altitude hard LOP to keep the heat produced low to get reliability. You may be LOP limited by pressurization, you'll have to watch that. I believe the GTSIO 520K drove a hydraulic pressurization system for the Aero Commander that use them. As they are in the 421 to the best of my knowledge they are turbo takeoff.
 
Last edited:
L.Adamson said:
I personally know a pilot that went through engine failure in his IV. He set down in a field, while having to duck under power lines at the last moment. The Lancair airframe remained intact, while internally shattered. In other words, it didn't break up, but won't be flying again.
Click to expand...

I saw private pictures of a local Lancair Legacy crash on March 1st, the one which is not in NTSB data (N273TE). They snagged power wires on approach to Belen (E80). The biggest part was the conical end of fuselage between the cabin and the tail. The second biggest part was a seat cushion. Remaining pieces were about the size of a human palm. Never saw the engine though, maybe it landed outside the debris field.

Another crash I noticed was Steve Appleton. Looks like an impossible turn after a mechanical failure. Since he did not land straight ahead I surmise he would not punch out even if sitting on a Zvezda K-36.
 
I recently met a Lancair IV-P owner who was a former military pilot. Flew U-2s among other aircraft. He didn't have any problems with flying the plane. He did stalls with it, and the thing went into a split-S and tried to kill him. So, he installed an angle of attack meter and said "I just don't get close to that zone anymore." Yes, people tend to land them fast, and so they frequently eat up a decent amount of runway on landing, but that's because of their unforgiving stall characteristics which prompt that.

As the plane is an experimental and therefore owner-built, the question of airframe safety mostly goes into how good of a job the owner did building the plane. I think the design itself is fine. It seems all the wrecks come from stall/spin accidents from people flying too slow on final, or alternately wings falling off after flying through thunderstorms. Find a good example, don't push the limits, and you should be fine with it.

As to engine reliability, keep in mind that to make the book numbers the plane is running its (one) engine pretty hard. This is typically not good for longevity. If you're nice to the engine, it will be nice to you.
 
zaitcev said:
I saw private pictures of a local Lancair Legacy crash on March 1st, the one which is not in NTSB data (N273TE). They snagged power wires on approach to Belen (E80). The biggest part was the conical end of fuselage between the cabin and the tail. The second biggest part was a seat cushion. Remaining pieces were about the size of a human palm. Never saw the engine though, maybe it landed outside the debris field.

Another crash I noticed was Steve Appleton. Looks like an impossible turn after a mechanical failure. Since he did not land straight ahead I surmise he would not punch out even if sitting on a Zvezda K-36.
Click to expand...
Steve Appleton's airplane was a pressurized and turbine powered Lancair IV, quite a different animal from an unpressurized piston powered IV.
 
I'm surprised that any of them are available for sale. Evidently this means that at least some of them haven't already crashed. Best I can tell, it's just a matter of time.
 
bbchien said:
Bill- it handles like a Curtis P-40. I have some guest time in one. Pull the power off, the relative bricked-ness will make the T38 look like a sailplane. Wing loading is about the same as a P-40...power to weight is similar.

My view as to what is missing from the equation is the red handle manufactured by Martin-Baker. But aside from that, if you are OKAY with flying a P40 without a hotseat, just remember the engine fail checklist is very very short.

Former P3 guy. Now flies Mooneys, Senecas, etc and owns a FIKI Seneca.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Of course a P40 doesn't have an ejection seat either, and the zero and 90knots seat in a t-38 did not have enough umph to get you out safely once you started your 180 turn to final (sink rate was too high), but an ejection seat is handy under the right conditions. By the way, it is hard to imagine any airplane that would come down faster than a T38 with no power. I don't be live there is any plane still in military service in the US that has a higher approach speed or worse sink rate than the venerable T38. It was designed to mimic century series fighters, like the f-104 and f-106 so it is much less forgiving than an F-15, f-16, F-18 etc.

I guess what I am looking for is the view of the handling of a Lancair 4 from the perspective of people who flew the generation of fighters before fly by wire, ie is a Lancair 4 tricky by the standard of an F-105?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Before you get too excited about that article, there was an L-39 that crashed outside of Vegas a week or two ago with 2 fatals. Pilot was former USAF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that an ex military pilot was immortal, only that the accident statistics for ex military jet pilots in civilian military jets was much lower than for pilots with no military jet flying experience. Also, in today's USAF only pilots destined for combat aircraft ever fly in high performance jets. Us older guys came from the days when all USAF pilots were trained the same way (t-37, T-38), whereas today's USAF pilots start in a prop trainer and only move to the T-38 if they are moving on to fighters or bombers. So the pilot of that L-39 may not have any high performance jet time. Of course he may have been an F-22 pilot, I don't know.
 
wabower said:
I'm surprised that any of them are available for sale. Evidently this means that at least some of them haven't already crashed. Best I can tell, it's just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

It is just a matter of time before every airplane crashes, unless it is taken out of service first. I guess what I was hoping to find was whether there was some actual design flaw that made the lancair4 particularly prone to mechanical failures, or is the problem simply one of pilots without sufficient training and discipline to safely fly the thing. I flew some dangerous planes and missions in the USAF but I don't consider myself to be a dare devil. My training involved years of nothing but constant training and testing, which is very different than what I got in my civilian training before the Air Force. I never even got I not a new plane in the USAF until I had spent weeks or months studying the systems and flying characteristics,and then it would be many more months before I was considered qualified for even the most basic mission without supervision. Civilians can fly virtually any aircraft with little more than a few days required for a type rating, and that is assuming that the plane requires any type rating at all
 
captbilly said:
Civilians can fly virtually any aircraft with little more than a few days required for a type rating, and that is assuming that the plane requires any type rating at all
Click to expand...

Really? Any aircraft (type rated)?

As far as the ex-military type equipment in civilian hands (L29/L39, etc) yes depending upon provider a pilot may squeek out a type with minimal training since it's performed under 14 CFR Part 61.

Perhaps you don't intend to do so, but please don't look down your nose at the non military trained pilots. I have daily interaction with pilots of all backgrounds and I don't see a big difference, some pilots excel and are more capable and some are behind the power curve, doesn't matter where they received their training.

Good luck in your plane search.
 
I'd think a military-trained guy might out-live a toad like me in one of those things, but then again I'm just a typical civilian who has spent a few days picking up some type ratings from time to time (along with having an experienced pilot as PIC of the airplane for few months after the type ride) but no reason to go into that detail in this discussion.

My problem with those little bastards is that there seems to be no safe pattern of operation that will yield predictable results insofar as longevity is concerned. I wouldn't fly one if it was free.

captbilly said:
It is just a matter of time before every airplane crashes, unless it is taken out of service first. I guess what I was hoping to find was whether there was some actual design flaw that made the lancair4 particularly prone to mechanical failures, or is the problem simply one of pilots without sufficient training and discipline to safely fly the thing. I flew some dangerous planes and missions in the USAF but I don't consider myself to be a dare devil. My training involved years of nothing but constant training and testing, which is very different than what I got in my civilian training before the Air Force. I never even got I not a new plane in the USAF until I had spent weeks or months studying the systems and flying characteristics,and then it would be many more months before I was considered qualified for even the most basic mission without supervision. Civilians can fly virtually any aircraft with little more than a few days required for a type rating, and that is assuming that the plane requires any type rating at all
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe that there is any particular design flaw that makes them particularly prone to failure. Keep in mind you are talking about a piston single-engine plane that upon engine failure has the glide ratio (and the descent rate to match).

I talked to someone who used to be one of the Lancair instructors in the IV-P. He said the big problem he saw was people not maintaining airspeed and lacking discipline to treat the plane with the respect it deserved. Sounded remarkably similar to the problems with the MU-2. It seems the people who did fine with it were people used to flying high-performance aircraft. It seems the folks who crash them the most are the ones who are trying to jump to this very high-performance aircraft without having any intermediate steps. Of course, this is from someone who's never flown the thing.

I'm not sure that the problem is civilian vs. military, it's more training, discipline, and experience vs. lack thereof. A 172 pilot jumping to a IV-P is asking to become a hole in the ground. A Lear pilot probably won't have any issues. And somewhere in between is, well, somewhere in between.

If they made a twin-engine version, I'd be all over it.
 
I spoke with a IV-P pilot ... said he would not do stalls unless above 8,000' AGL. He
also recommended regular 'upset' training.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If they made a twin-engine version, I'd be all over it.
Click to expand...

Do they offer a BRS system for the Lancair IV?

What gets me about a really high performance single like that, is the lack of a chute. I know mechanical failures still rate pretty low for the fatality count in the grand scheme of things, but a forced landing at 80kts does not sound like fun.

I read an article written by an F-16 pilot who is now an active GA pilot. He said something to the effect of 'flying my wife and kids around in a 182 requires just as much planning and careful decision making as the F-16. Things are different when you are solo and have an ejection seat"

The Lancair is slick and fast, like a fighter. I'm sure you'll be great at flying it. But what do you do in a fighter, should you have an engine failure and can't glide to a runway? Punch out. At least in a cessna, should you go into the trees, you have a pretty good chance going in at 45 kts. Rough field at 45kts? wrinkled firewall. At 75-80kts for either of these scenarios, your chances of walking away go wayyy down
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Do they offer a BRS system for the Lancair IV?
Click to expand...

A BRS is not a substitue for a twin. However, keep in mind that it's an experimental. If you want it, make it.

One of my friends was going to put a BRS in his Rans S-7. He may still be planning on it, I haven't asked him in a while.
 
I'm ex-Mil too, and have spent some time looking at the Hi-Perf homebuilts. I've since become less enamored with them, mostly because of the small cockpits and the likelihood of me flying longer trips with more than one person.

I kinda came away with the notion that alot of the issues came from the "high approach / landing speeds" suggested. Many seemed spooked by coming in so "hot"... My problem with transitioning to GA is feeling like I'm always going too slow!

I think the Lancairs and the like just have (much?) narrow-er flight envelope and folks are used to more forgiving planes.

OT - How'd you like the Glasair FT? Was it a I or a II? Didn't consider the Glasair III? I liked it better than the Lancairs...
 
MitchB said:
I kinda came away with the notion that alot of the issues came from the "high approach / landing speeds" suggested. Many seemed spooked by coming in so "hot"... My problem with transitioning to GA is feeling like I'm always going too slow!
Click to expand...

Have no issues with that on a runway.. I take issue with the "hot" approach if you are an unlucky SOB and have no where else to make a hot approach other than the trees!
 
Here is what Doug Rozendaal had to say about the IV:

"I have flown the piston IVP and I have nothing good to say about it except that it is fast. It is not an airplane for anyone other than a very professional, well trained, and very current pilot. It has zero tolerance for wing contamination... ZERO! How do you fly an airplane in the mid-twenties that has ZERO tolerance for wing contamination? The piston version has a highly stressed poorly cooled engine in an airplane with a 70+ knot stall speed and totally uncertifiable low-speed handling....

I would not own either version of a IVP nor would I recommend one to my friends. I would not fly one in low IFR, over hostile terrain, or at night. Moving the stall speed from 50 something to 70 something cuts off airport landing survivability by a huge margin. Further, an average pilot can actually full stall land the Evolution, NO ONE would try to full stall land a IVP."


This guy is a hell of a pilot by most yardsticks, I would pass. Get an Evolution instead.
 
I honestly doubt they're safe for anyone. Most military fighters aren't safe for anyone either. Despite all the selection and training fighter pilot is consistently one of the most dangerous professions.
 
Agree with professor W (Steingar).

Safe is a relative item. Compared to dying under mechanized enemy assault, the P-40 was safe. For a trip to grandma's......not so much.

What's missing in the IV-P is a survival "out" system, either Martin Baker in origin or a BRS.

If I am going to fly a "hot design" it better have a reliable turbine or an escape system.
 
You guys are starting to scare me. Just get a Mooney or Bonanza, and be done with it!
 
denverpilot said:
Those have their risks too. :)
Click to expand...

Every airplane does. I suspect an average pilot can fly a certificated aircraft and with a little good judgement not get into too much grief. The IVP, not so much. Just my feeling from the accident reports, and not claiming to be an expert.
 
steingar said:
I honestly doubt they're safe for anyone. Most military fighters aren't safe for anyone either. Despite all the selection and training fighter pilot is consistently one of the most dangerous professions.
Click to expand...

Just wondering from a current fighter pilot... where are you getting your info? I have lost friends doing the job, but not as many as I would expect to put us in that category.

Military fighters are VERY safe (at least all the twin engine ones). I've been in some pretty crappy situations but the Eagle has always brought me home, even if it was on one engine...
 
EvilEagle said:
Just wondering from a current fighter pilot... where are you getting your info? I have lost friends doing the job, but not as many as I would expect to put us in that category.

Military fighters are VERY safe (at least all the twin engine ones). I've been in some pretty crappy situations but the Eagle has always brought me home, even if it was on one engine...
Click to expand...

You just said it. Ask around how many non-pilots loose friends on the job. Not so many.
 
"Safe" is relative.

"Appropriate" is totally different. Yes, I can still (I think) handle a T37....it's been MANY years but the lessons are burned in. What is acceptable for a warbird mission (personnel losses, etc) is perhaps not so much for visiting friends.

Everything is an engineering compromise. Why do you think I got to fly the FLAG around in a four engine turboprop? Maybe you have seen so, but I have NEVER seen the FLAG flying around in an F 14.
 
Last edited:
I look at the IV-P planes and know I don't have the chops to fly it...the performance is unreal...

Me...I don't like the feeling I get when I picture myself with passengers in one...
 
Kelvin said:
I look at the IV-P planes and know I don't have the chops to fly it...the performance is unreal...

Me...I don't like the feeling I get when I picture myself with passengers in one...
Click to expand...

As much as the MU-2 is a jet with turboprops, the IV-P is a jet with pistons (or a turboprop if you buy the turbine version).

From the 182, it'd be a hell of a step, and probably ill-advised.

Like I said... If they made a twin-engine version, I'd be all over it. But there are a lot of limitations it has, especially when it comes to weather capability. The Aztec can carry enough ice to restore the polar ice caps. The IV-P can't carry enough ice to chill a Crown and Coke.
 
steingar said:
You just said it. Ask around how many non-pilots loose friends on the job. Not so many.
Click to expand...

Firefighters, cops, divers, sailors, bush pilots, Ag pilots..... there's a lot of folks who lose people on the job.

I'm ok with people speculating, but most that do so about fighter pilots/planes/etc don't actually know anyone that does the job or have any facts to back it up. This may not be the case here - not sure; that's why I ask.
 
A writeup of the recent "near-vertical descent into terrain" by a Lancair Propjet is included in the June 2012 B&CA Magazine that arrived today.
 
Wayne...was that a Propjet or a Mu-2 in that article?

wabower said:
A writeup of the recent "near-vertical descent into terrain" by a Lancair Propjet is included in the June 2012 B&CA Magazine that arrived today.
Click to expand...
 
Look up the bugatti aircraft project. One of the ring leaders is Scotty Wilson. Former career fighter pilot with strong background in training in fighters and accident investigation.

Scotty flies a lancair although not p model. He is a good friend and patient of mine. If the website doesn't list how to get in touch with him pm me and I will get his email for you. I am certain he could provide some guidance for you.

Jon
 
It's described as a League Lanceair Propjet. Harry League of Chicago, the builder of the plane, was killed along with the instructor.
Kelvin said:
Wayne...was that a Propjet or a Mu-2 in that article?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The OP asked about a Lancair IV (which I've flown in) but many of the replies are about the IV-P. Do the two have very similar flight characteristics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top