The Lancair IV, unsafe at any speed??

One of my fellow company pilots has been flying one for a friend, in this case the IVP with a Walter Turbine and said the autopilot is absolutely necessary because the plane will diverge from the flightpath very quickly. A moments inattention and your in trouble. This is coming from a pilot with 20,000+ hours too!
 
Last edited:
Gort01 said:
This is coming from a pilot with 20,000+ hours too!
Click to expand...

Which means nothing just about nothing. I once hired a 20,000+ hour pilot that could barely keep a caravan right side up without the autopilot on.
 
BoiseDude said:
Which means nothing just about nothing. I once hired a 20,000+ hour pilot that could barely keep a caravan right side up without the autopilot on.
Click to expand...

Parker hours?
 
90knot glide speeds sound a bit steep for a recreational family cruiser I intend to force land. Then again, aren't Malibu class turboprops around the same speeds deadstick? God knows those things have a lot more mass and fuel to mort ya with at impact.
 
These planes will gain or lose a few hundred feet altitude with very little inattention. Even on autopilot just extending your arm and raising or lowering it will cause variation in the altitude.

Not sure where the 90 knot figure came from. In my lowly 235 the best glide is 104 knots. Loss of engine makes for a bad scenario.

I have almost 1000 hours in mine. It was down for maintenance for about 2 months. I flew it today for the 1st time since taking it out of service for maintenance 2 months ago. I felt rusty. I cannot go more than about 1 month in this plane without feeling rusty. Our RV by contrast I feel like I could go a year and feel just fine.
 
for those of you that question the strength of the IV google dave morss losing a prop blade coming down the chute at reno years a go.

bob
 
Boisedude's first post is a bump of a 4 year old thread?...

FORANE said:
These planes will gain or lose a few hundred feet altitude with very little inattention.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's the same type of Lancair you fly but I was talking to a guy who said the same thing about his. Told me a story about flying in IMC, knocked autopilot off, looked down to correct it and was already thrown off his attitude and pointing down... Still, it's a bad ass plane!
 
Fast airplane with little training in a high performance airplane ,is a dangerous scenario.Cirrus was having a problem,untill they increased the transition training hours.
 
Transition training is very well advised in these types of aircraft. They are enough of a handful that in Australia their version of the FAA would not allow the 235/320/360 aircraft to be registered without modification to the airframe - specifically they mandated a larger tail. In Canada, their version of the FAA requires a type rating to fly Lancairs.
 
ebetancourt said:
The accessory it most needs for IFR is real protection against a lightning strike.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence?
How many composite homebuilts crash due to lightning?
"Conclusions by NASA and Glasair are that most general aviation air- planes would fare no better than a composite in a lighting strike. Glassair also indicated that they have not sold a Glasair LP (+$10,000 option) since introduced over a year ago. As you must know, many com- posites are flying regularly in IFR environment without, as of yet, the first lightning related accident." -
http://www.velocityaircraft.com/views/V2.pdf

Disclaimer: I am building a lightning-less velocity:):yeahthat:
 
The IV and the Cessna 400 do have similarities. Thinner, faster wing and retract gear on the IV. From what I understand the stall speed is pretty hot and it's a violent stall. There was a Lancair IV accident about 10 minutes from my house a couple years ago. The prop mounting bolts came loose after not being torqued correctly and the hub and prop assembly separated. Personally, there are so many other a/c that are close in performance that don't have the slick handling characteristics of the IV.
 
BoiseDude said:
Which means nothing just about nothing. I once hired a 20,000+ hour pilot that could barely keep a caravan right side up without the autopilot on.
Click to expand...
In my humble experience , that would be the exception rather than the rule . All pilots I've known with 15000 or more were very sharp and were both ex military and either senior or retired airline with one exception who flew for a major manuf. mainly in gulfstream world wide.
 
BoiseDude said:
Which means nothing just about nothing. I once hired a 20,000+ hour pilot that could barely keep a caravan right side up without the autopilot on.
Click to expand...

Going to call BS on this one. Why did you hire him if he sucked so badly?
 
I've been thinking about the relationship between speed and fatalities today and while I agree that cruise speed isn't so highly correlated with fatal accidents, I suspect stall speed is. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so doubling your touchdown speed quadruples the energy you carry upon landing.

I've seen stall speeds in the range of 71MPH to 88 MPH for Lancairs, which is quite a bit higher than a C172 or C182. Imagine putting down in a bumpy field at 70+ MPH, or plowing into a car on the freeway at similar speeds. Of course this has nothing to do with coming apart in the air or spinning it into the dirt, but the extra 20MPH on touchdown must significantly increase the chances and severity of injury during an off-field landing.
 
Ryanb said:
The IV and the Cessna 400 do have similarities. Thinner, faster wing and retract gear on the IV. From what I understand the stall speed is pretty hot and it's a violent stall. There was a Lancair IV accident about 10 minutes from my house a couple years ago. The prop mounting bolts came loose after not being torqued correctly and the hub and prop assembly separated. Personally, there are so many other a/c that are close in performance that don't have the slick handling characteristics of the IV.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the conventional wisdom is that you just don't stall the IV-P, ever.
 
Ryanb said:
Or any aircraft; easier said than done when the windmill pukes on ya.
Click to expand...

I guess I meant "intentionally" stall. AFAIK, it's not done in transition training in the IV-P because it's so aggressive. A IV-P pilot, who I was riding with in the airplane, explained it to me as "In a normal stall, it'll break hard and spin; in an uncoordinated stall, it'll spin flat. We don't do stalls."
 
Ryanb said:
The IV and the Cessna 400 do have similarities. Thinner, faster wing and retract gear on the IV. From what I understand the stall speed is pretty hot and it's a violent stall. There was a Lancair IV accident about 10 minutes from my house a couple years ago. The prop mounting bolts came loose after not being torqued correctly and the hub and prop assembly separated. Personally, there are so many other a/c that are close in performance that don't have the slick handling characteristics of the IV.
Click to expand...


Does the Wheeler Express have better low speed manners?
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Does the Wheeler Express have better low speed manners?
Click to expand...

I would think so. Greater wing area and less wing loading. The wing on the Lancair appears to be far thinner as well.

Always liked Wheelers. Just never caught on. Same could be said for a lot of homebuilts. Bill Cox has a good review of one on Wonderful World of Flying series.
 
Gort01 said:
One of my fellow company pilots has been flying one for a friend, in this case the IVP with a Walter Turbine and said the autopilot is absolutely necessary because the plane will diverge from the flightpath very quickly. A moments inattention and your in trouble. This is coming from a pilot with 20,000+ hours too!
Click to expand...

Sounds fun.

Always liked those, but at the same price point as a turbine Titian 51, doubt I'd pass the 51 up
 
Fast plane, short runway:




PLANE MEETS THE MARSH
Details
Written by CKN STAFF
Published: 15 October 2016

PLANE ABORTS MISSION
AT CEDAR KEY AIRPORT…
NO ONE INJURED
October 15, 2016

At approximately 9 am today, Saturday, October 15, 2016, while attempting a to land, another small two-seater airplane, N767EM, met the marsh at the Cedar Key Airport. No one was injured!

plane_0198xe.JPG


plane_0203xe.JPG
 
2355 foot long runway is well under what I would attempt in a Lancair unless there was a very strong headwind.
 
Flown into Cedar Key in my old AA-5. Would never attempt in my Glasair.
 
With recent remarking of KCDK's runway, there are now displaced thresholds on BOTH ends! - no one knows why.
So 2355' is being generous.
(Edit)- also hard to judge winds, no local ATIS and Hermine basically destroyed the wind socks. Be careful down there.
 
Based at Spruce Creek, FL, 7FL6. Retired military and 767 pilot. Glad he is okay.
 
My RV-10 specs say 63 mph(accurate) and 650'(not likely unless powering it in near stall, shallow approach and jamming on the brakes). I have landed on several 2000' runways at gross without overheating and fading the brakes with 500' to spare. Most of us don't fly like test pilots producing sales literature.
 
Landed my 360 at Andover, 1981ft Rwy, calm wind, no issues.

Based at N07, Rwy 1 is 2100ft due to displaced threshold, no issue in 7 yrs.
 
coma24 said:
Landed my 360 at Andover, 1981ft Rwy, calm wind, no issues.

Based at N07, Rwy 1 is 2100ft due to displaced threshold, no issue in 7 yrs.
Click to expand...

With the trees chopped down at the approach end of Rwy 1 now it's even easier.
 
I always thought these were capable of a sub 2000 ft runway. Too bad either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top