Why is the Lancair IV-P so dangerous?

Maybe do an overhead break, too? Could be easier to see other traffic that way instead of descending on top of it. Even overaking, the descent rate is such that they hide under the nose. I'm not facetous, because I knew someone flying T-6 that way.
 
Can someone describe wing loading? What is it and how does it affect flight characteristics?
 
JHW said:
So you come into the pattern high, in your low wing plane, and descend through traffic pattern altitude on the base leg while going faster than any other traffic likely to be encountered (run over). Is that about the size of it?
Click to expand...

before my airport acquired an idiot tower, how do you think the citations, lear jets, mu-2's and other fast animals approach our airport? they all came barreling down or do you expect those airplanes to slow to 45 miles an hour to avoid running over slow traffic? they and I usually tried to be sensitive and use an instrument approach and try a direct landing, but some users have no idea of where the FAF or MAP or outer marker or other alphabet soup words mean.
 
txflyer said:
I can dig it. I've seen jets do tight turns at airshows.

The IV-P has a smoking hole rate of 4000f.p.m. down when the mill quits right?Man, that's space shuttle piloting. I can see it now,

"hey Clem!, the mill quit! I'll just set her down in that field over ...
Click to expand...

again military training comes back
if your engine quits you should be able to make it to the runway
if an engine quits in a IV-P you better be 1500 or 2000 feet above the field to make it, ditto for the T6 or SNJ. But those jockeys that fly the 150's and use a 4 mile final what about them? where do you think they will finish when their engine quits in oklahoma before landing in dallas?
 
magyarflyer said:
before my airport acquired an idiot tower, how do you think the citations, lear jets, mu-2's and other fast animals approach our airport? they all came barreling down or do you expect those airplanes to slow to 45 miles an hour to avoid running over slow traffic? they and I usually tried to be sensitive and use an instrument approach and try a direct landing, but some users have no idea of where the FAF or MAP or outer marker or other alphabet soup words mean.
Click to expand...

As someone who routinely flies a jet (A319/320) into uncontrolled airports without an IAP, I plan on entering the downwind at 1500' AFE, flaps 1 and about 190-180 knots (depending on weight). Downwind is typically 2.0 to 2.5 miles abeam centerline of the runway. At the 45 I turn base, flaps 2 slow to 150kias, then gear down, flaps 3, roll out on final, flaps full on Vapp ( about 120-135) through the 1000'AFE gate. My turn to final is usually inside the CF (centerline final) which is 5 miles.

If I want I can crank the pattern tighter, but then the passengers may start to get a little freaked out. :rolleyes:
 
I try to stay away from the IAF and 'T' pattern approaches at all the airports.

I fly in all wonky like a stolen Cessna. :lol:

I look and listen for you jet guys, but sometimes you don't ever say anything. You just land. Boom! Done. Takeoff's too. Boom! Gone. Not a word. :dunno:
 
Art VanDelay said:
Because they are largely flown by individuals with more money than aviation knowledge. Someone on one of the other boards refers to it as "The Cirrus Effect".
Click to expand...

It should be called the Bonanza Effect. That is the first aircraft where this phenomenon was first widely recognized.
 
It's been said, but it's not the plane.
 
I had over 6,000 hours when I bought my Cirrus.

The pilots on the Cirrus Owner's site range from ab initio newbies to some very, very experienced and capable pilots. More than a few had moved over from cabin class twins. Many others from other high performance and/or complex aircraft. A whole subset has since moved up to turboprops and jets.

If there's a bugaboo about the type, I think it's common to all TAA aircraft, where things can be so automated that a kink in the automation leaves the pilot momentarily both flustered and fixated. This can be especially true for pilots who fly infrequently. "Buttonology" skills fade very rapidly. Training needs to be specifically tailored to TAA aircraft, and often isn't.
 
BellyUpFish said:
It's been said, but it's not the plane.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that this is one of the few cases where the plane actually is a factor. Cirrus and Bonanza? Agreed fully, it's not the plane.
 
I don't know if it's the same but a couple of friends of mine pancaked into an alfalfa field in a flat spin with a Glasair about a year ago. After some Goggling I discovered that stalling a Glasair isn't particularly advisable. When you get into these sorts of high performance aircraft well, they aren't Cessnas and my friend knew that, he was highly experienced.

When we start talking about jets I think that your typical GA pilot (myself included) doesn't have a clue as to just how constrained they are. They're optimized to do a specific task and do it well and that task is not the hundred dollar hamburger run. They are operating in a very narrow envelope.
 
Before I got my Glasair I heard all the warnings about how dangerous this type of plane was. Now that I've been flying it for 7 years, I wonder what all the fuss was about. Fly the pattern higher, wider and faster.. plan a little more in advance.. Piece of cake.
 
Do you do stalls in the Glasair for training/checkout?

I don't think stalls are done in jets (for training) either, right?
 
No stalls, just a lot of emergency procedures and familiarization with the ground moving past at a much higher rate then one was used to. Most memorable is the big push which you learn to do without delay if there is an interruption in power on climb out.

I have intentionally stalled the plane and done a 3 turn spin. Uneventful save for the amount of altitude lost. They do fall out of the sky as fast as they move through it. That being said.. it's actually not at all a difficult plane to fly.
 
James331 said:
It has a diffrent envlope compared to the trainer types most folks fly, gotta shift your brain to that.

Plane is not unsafe, it's just not a lil trainer or cirrus or Bo.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The Lancair IV has a performance envelope very similar to a P-40 Warhawk. Lose an engine, and you're coming down fast, and probably going to hit hard. The P-40 had an accident rate of nearly 200 per 100,000 flight hours (vs. GA rate of about 8).

Ron Wanttaja
 
dans2992 said:
Do you do stalls in the Glasair for training/checkout?

I don't think stalls are done in jets (for training) either, right?
Click to expand...

I did stalls in my Glasair during checkout and continue to do them periodically. It's a non event. Besides stalling faster, it stalls like a PA-28. Stalls straight ahead with no roll off. No stall horn either. It's called knowing your aircraft. Something that a lot of pilots these days aren't familiar with because they're afraid of stalls.

Nothing dangerous about these aircraft. You just can't fly them like a C-172 / PA-28. Keep the speed up, plan your pattern further out, understand the relationship with increase stall speed and bank angle and don't do a big flare on landing.
 
N321SR said:
Before I got my Glasair I heard all the warnings about how dangerous this type of plane was. Now that I've been flying it for 7 years, I wonder what all the fuss was about. Fly the pattern higher, wider and faster.. plan a little more in advance.. Piece of cake.
Click to expand...

The scary part is when the engine quits and you don't happen to have an airport right under you.:eek: That's a place I don't want to be, in a fiberglass airplane, hitting the dirt at 90mph!
 
The only time I feel more vulnerable is on departure below say 2k agl and short final. Engine failure in those moments would be bad. Otherwise I'm flying high or headed up there fast. Roughly 85% of the time there is at least 10,000 ft under the keel and more often 15k, so at 140 kt best glide speed that hopefully gives at least a couple choices of airports to glide to. That's the plan anyway, not planning on testing it out. You can imagine people who own these types of planes are very selective on who maintains their engine.. or should be.
 
N321SR said:
The only time I feel more vulnerable is on departure below say 2k agl and short final. Engine failure in those moments would be bad. Otherwise I'm flying high or headed up there fast. Roughly 85% of the time there is at least 10,000 ft under the keel and more often 15k, so at 140 kt best glide speed that hopefully gives at least a couple choices of airports to glide to. That's the plan anyway, not planning on testing it out. You can imagine people who own these types of planes are very selective on who maintains their engine.. or should be.
Click to expand...


exactly the reasons for using xavion
these airplanes are used for long range flight and not the usual hamburger weekend search. They do best at altitude, mine at 23-24K
 
Having read the reports on the numerous Lancair IV accidents, it is apparent that a great majority are pilot error, or more descriptively, "pilot stupidity" One of the worst was a pilot who ran out of hydraulic fluid after not logging any inspections or maintenance for ten years. Then he traded places with someone (in flight) who had never flown the aircraft so he could see if he could get the gear down, --three dead. And so on. Many were engine issues not related to the aircraft type, many of those due to pilot stupidity. Many were the result of flying into weather when they should have known better, again "pilot ---". There was even one in on the first test flight of a newly built aircraft, flown by a Lancair Test Pilot, he pulled a dumb move and took off at the end of a taxi test run down the runway with not enough runway left, and ripped the empennage off hitting an obstacle off the end of the runway, another fatality. How would a company test pilot be that stupid? A First flight and you don't start the takeoff roll from having the MLG wheels at the very edge of the pavement so that you have the advantage of every single inch of that runway? maybe that could be considered a big negative on Lancair as a company?

I counted 70 dead people resulting from Lancair IV accidents which would certainly tend to make you think there is a problem with the aircraft. I think the guy who stated that they are purchased by people who have more money than flight intelligence was right. There is also the possibility that the L IV may be purchased by some who barely have enough to buy them, then find themselves having a difficult time financing the ongoing expenses, and bypass needed maintenance and training. It is obviously an aircraft that needs to be watched very closely when low and slow. But, keep up the maintenance, have plenty of training in it, and for God's sake, pay attention to it, both on the ground and in the air. Don't buy one if you expect to hop in, start the engine, set the autopilot, and set back and snooze until destination. If that's what you want to do, buy a first class ticket on American Airlines, it will be a whole lot cheaper anyway.
 
First, I pulled the wings off a IV-P just the other day. I would happily fly in one, those spars were amazing! They were held on by the biggest bolt I'd ever seen, made of titanium so it didn't weigh a damn thing. The design of the airframe was to say the least impressive. That said it had a big turbine out front, gotta be nose-heavy.

My take has been this. When experimental aircraft first came into being they were mostly low powered puddle jumpers made out of wood and rags. Later kit companies started making faster and more capable airframe powered by aircraft engines, but they were still in their hearts simple aircraft with relatively simple systems, even if some were made out of advanced materials.

The IV-P and its ilk fly at airliner altitudes and at nearly airliner speeds (north of 330 knots). The one I helped pull the wings off of has a turbine engine and pressurization, both complex systems. So you have mini airliners being built and flown by rank amateurs. And that is why I think you see the accident rate you do.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with the aircraft. I suspect flown by a pilot with proper training and currency they're utter miracles. My friend said he could get to Florida in two hours. But get a guy without currency behind the wheel and I think you can have problems. Get a guy without currency when the chips are down I think you have real problems.

And yeah, loose the mill and you're coming down fast hitting the dirt fast in carbon fiber with teeny little wheels. That's gotta hurt.
 
Last edited:
Carrol. Jorgenson said:
Having read the reports on the numerous Lancair IV accidents, it is apparent that a great majority are pilot error, or more descriptively, "pilot stupidity"
Click to expand...
Not by my analysis.

In my 1998-2016 homebuilt accident database, there are 65 Lancair 4 (including 4, 4P, and 4 Turbo) accidents. 32% are due to pilot's improper controlling of the aircraft. That's vs. 38% for the homebuilt fleet in general, and 45% for the Vans RV-6 (albeit some of them are related to the nosewheel strut issue).

When one includes all pilot factors (continued VFR into IFR, fuel exhaustion, etc.) the Lancair 4 comes out at about 45%, vs. over 60% for homebuilts in general. Certainly, one can cherry-pick cases of stupid pilots flying Lancair 4s. Just like one can find similar cases in the overall fleet.

Coupled with that is the experience level for Lancair 4 pilots: Those involved in accidents had a median of 2500 hours total flight time, vs. 1,000 hours for homebuilts in general. Yes, there are low-time pilots who get in trouble in Lancair 4s. But it happens far less often than folks think.

For fatal accidents, the numbers get closer. The Lancair 4 median flight hours for fatal accidents drops to 1908 hours, and rises to 1100 for the overall fleet.

Compared to the overall homebuilt fleet, the Lancair 4 has an elevated rate of mechanical issues. It's about 15 percentage points higher than the overall homebuilt fleet. It's a more complex airplane, with more things that can go wrong.

The Lancair 4 is an extremely high-performance aircraft, with a relatively high stall speed. An engine failure or a loss of control at low altitude likely will have much graver consequences than, for instance, a Pietenpol. Remember, the Lancair 4 has about the same performance envelope as a Curtiss P-40. If the engine quit, you're going to have trouble setting it down without damage.

The fleet accident rate (average number of accidents per year vs. the total number of registered examples) is quite a bit higher than average, for the Lancair 4, *but it is not the highest*. Plus, it's much more likely that all ~250 examples in the US registry are active and flying, vs. planes like the Avid where there are a lot of older examples no longer active.

Ron Wanttaja
 
@wanttaja

What facts in this discussion? Not allowed. This is obviously a violation of forum etiquette.

Anyway, a few years ago I was in a position to purchase consider a Lancair IVP. I talked to a couple of LOBO trainers and also two very experienced test pilots, one of whom did a lot of test flights for both Lancair and for the Lancair community.

At the end of the research I came to the following basic conclusion. The Lancair IVP when everything works (including the pilot) it is a dream to fly. It fits its specific mission very well as a fast travel plane. However, when anything goes wrong, the plane has so little margin for error, that problems generally spiral very fast with fatal results. It does not matter if the problem is engine, pressurization system, avionics, electrical.... It is a complex plane, with very little in the way of margin for error. While certified planes are required to have very significant margins of error built into them.

Also, the MU-2 referenced earlier the in thread. The SFAR and the training were because standard twin engine training actually is the exactly wrong thing to do in the MU-2 in case of emergency. Since the SFAR went into place, and pilots are required to train to the specific capabilities of the MU-2, you find the plane has impressive safety margins and does very well.

Tim
 
Different from the IV obviously, do know that the 2 seat Lancair has severe controlability issues if the canopy opens in flight, causing the Hstab to be blanked. I got to watch it happen one time - Lancair departed from Friday Harbor, WA. During initial climb, maybe 50' AGL, the canopy popped. It swung open pretty much to it's full stop, and the aircraft pitched sharply nose-down. Pilot recovered at maybe 10' AGL, barely climbed out over the trees at the far end of the runway. We watched a few minutes for a column of smoke, but never saw anything, so assumed he was able to close the canopy and continue. We finished our pre-flight and started taxiing for departure. As we got the to the departure end of the runway, we saw him on final. As he started his roundout, the canopy swung open again, the aircraft pitched down, and landed hard, short of the runway. Gear collapsed on touchdown. Pilot got out, staggered around a few feet, and collapsed on his butt. We shut down and ran to help, he seemed uninjured but shaken up. BTW's the pilot's statement in the NTSB report that "His dog unlatched the canopy" ain't what he told us. He said he had it open for ventilation while taxiing because of condensation on the inside, and didn't close it.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20180114X05559&key=1
 
Never flown one, but know several that have. They have related beyond its high performance and handling issues, it has one other major weakness. You have a high speed aircraft that is home in the flight levels that has no ice protection or onboard radar. Two tools most other aircraft at those altitudes have and need.
 
tspear said:
Also, the MU-2 referenced earlier the in thread. The SFAR and the training were because standard twin engine training actually is the exactly wrong thing to do in the MU-2 in case of emergency. Since the SFAR went into place, and pilots are required to train to the specific capabilities of the MU-2, you find the plane has impressive safety margins and does very well.
Click to expand...

That's largely true. The MU-2 also doesn't entirely fly like a normal airplane in low speed operations. I classify it as two different airplanes - above 160 KIAS and below 160 KIAS. It's an extraordinary capable aircraft and very safe when flown properly even in abnormal conditions. The inherent difficulties with it are that, since it doesn't fly like a normal plane, the training becomes that much more important. The MU-2 still had to meet the appropriate cert standards when it was built. With that said, I don't consider the MU-2 to be for beginners and I don't think it's for everybody. When people ask me about it, there are some for whom I recommend it and some for whom I don't dependent on experience and their mission/utilization mostly.

The IV-P by comparison isn't certified, isn't docile on handling, etc. You have a lot more going against you to start.

@wanttaja thanks for the thoughtful analysis, as always.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Never flown one, but know several that have. They have related beyond its high performance and handling issues, it has one other major weakness. You have a high speed aircraft that is home in the flight levels that has no ice protection or onboard radar. Two tools most other aircraft at those altitudes have and need.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with the icing comment, I can' imagine one of those carrying much ice at all. As far as radar, I think in most places we can get weather depictions on the ADSB feed that, while not current, are not of sufficient age to preclude strategic weather decisions.
 
No intent to foreshadow RonW's excellent analysis of the ntsb reports, LOBO (Lancair Owners and Builders Org) has been studying this issue with attempts to improve the situation.

click here for a direct pdf download of the 2016 LOBO White Paper on Accident Safety

They have produced study guides and training manuals for the IV and the Legacy, hold safety forums at their meetings, have developed a pool of dedicated instructors, and vigorously encourage initial, and recurrent training. Studying the accident rate, high risk activities, causes of accidents is a part of the syllabus for new attendees.
They have been studying the COPA and MU-2 approaches to solving their high accident rate.

(the biggest hurdle seems to be getting pilots to partake of training; participation is often in the single digits, percentage-wise)

https://www.lancairowners.com/safety-and-training
(hover over Safety and Training)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
They have been studying the COPA and MU-2 approaches to solving their high accident rate.

(the biggest hurdle seems to be getting pilots to partake of training; participation is often in the single digits, percentage-wise)

https://www.lancairowners.com/safety-and-training
(hover over Safety and Training)
Click to expand...

Maybe two years ago we had a guy on beechtalk post his path to purchase of a 4P. He also explained how he didn't need transition training* and knew how to fly it just based on how good of a pilot he is.





* It boiled down to the fact that the lobo instructors require the plane to be insured before they get in and he wasn't willing to pay for insurance.
 
weilke said:
Maybe two years ago we had a guy on beechtalk post his path to purchase of a 4P. He also explained how he didn't need transition training* and knew how to fly it just based on how good of a pilot he is.





* It boiled down to the fact that the lobo instructors require the plane to be insured before they get in and he wasn't willing to pay for insurance.
Click to expand...

Sigh.
 
The 4p is one you have to fly by the numbers, ALWAYS. As others have said, the I think it's the wing loading and inexperience that are the gotcha's with this airframe. Transition training is key with the 4P. We have multiple 4P's and prop-jets at my field. I know a few of the pilots and have flown a couple. The plane isn't for me, but that's not to say it isn't a good airframe.
 
The margin of safety built into certified aircraft takes into consideration the “human element”. Most of us like having a margin of safety built in during an “Oh Sh%t!” maneuver or situation that we caused due to our fallible nature. We’re not perfect. A smart pilot never plays on the edge of the flight envelope or puts himself in situations that require super human talents to extract him/her self. Like Mr. Eastwood says, “A man has got to know his limitations”.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
No intent to foreshadow RonW's excellent analysis of the ntsb reports, LOBO (Lancair Owners and Builders Org) has been studying this issue with attempts to improve the situation.

click here for a direct pdf download of the 2016 LOBO White Paper on Accident Safety

They have produced study guides and training manuals for the IV and the Legacy, hold safety forums at their meetings, have developed a pool of dedicated instructors, and vigorously encourage initial, and recurrent training. Studying the accident rate, high risk activities, causes of accidents is a part of the syllabus for new attendees.
They have been studying the COPA and MU-2 approaches to solving their high accident rate.

(the biggest hurdle seems to be getting pilots to partake of training; participation is often in the single digits, percentage-wise)

https://www.lancairowners.com/safety-and-training
(hover over Safety and Training)
Click to expand...

weilke said:
Maybe two years ago we had a guy on beechtalk post his path to purchase of a 4P. He also explained how he didn't need transition training* and knew how to fly it just based on how good of a pilot he is.





* It boiled down to the fact that the lobo instructors require the plane to be insured before they get in and he wasn't willing to pay for insurance.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you that not everyone who flies an MU-2 is a super pilot. Frankly there are some who I wouldn't get into an airplane with (that's true of any fleet, of course). However the stats have shown quite clearly that with good, consistent initial and recurrent training, they can be safe.

The IV-P has some design issues that I think make this harder than the MU-2, but on the whole I suspect they'd see a significant improvement if it could be mandated. Problem is the FAA probably won't go to that step for a homebuilt, and while the insurance may require it, if people aren't required to get insurance then that means that only some will bother.

Some people have said the MU-2 needs to get flown like a jet, and some will even pull the LearBaron argument of "it's really a jet that just has propellers." Personally I don't buy into that part of it. It's not a jet, it's a turboprop, but it's not a turboprop like a King Air (which is supremely forgiving). I'd argue that a type rating with the appropriate training is more important on a IV-P or an MU-2 than some of the VLJs that are specifically engineered to be easy to fly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The IV-P has some design issues that I think make this harder than the MU-2, but on the whole I suspect they'd see a significant improvement if it could be mandated. Problem is the FAA probably won't go to that step for a homebuilt, and while the insurance may require it, if people aren't required to get insurance then that means that only some will bother.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if you do the training, you can get reasonably priced insurance (hull and liability) for a Mu2. I don't know the current situation, but there were times that hull insurance on the iv-p was quoted at the 'we don't want you to buy that' rate.
 
weilke said:
The thing is, if you do the training, you can get reasonably priced insurance (hull and liability) for a Mu2. I don't know the current situation, but there were times that hull insurance on the iv-p was quoted at the 'we don't want you to buy that' rate.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't legally fly an MU-2 without the training, period. If anyone is flying them without training, they're doing a good job of keeping quiet about it. But you are correct with the MU-2 you can get reasonable insurance rates. For some comparison, comparing the 414 to the MU-2 for same hull value, the MU-2 is only about $800 more per year, maybe $1k. Obviously I'm no longer insuring the 414, but I expect that delta to decrease significantly as I get more time in type for the MU-2.

However, make no mistake, the insurance companies can still give "We don't want you to buy it" rates. There's only 1 or 2 companies that will even provide insurance to MU-2 transition pilots. I only got quotes from 2 companies. I considered those companies to have reasonable rates, but keep in mind I was transitioning to the MU-2 with nearly 3k total time, 2500 multi, and 100 turbine (with 500 or so pressurized/cabin class) so I was a good candidate. You have some people who are trying to transition in the 1k range (or in some cases sub 1k) and just barely hitting the multi engine time requirements per CFR Part 91 Subpart N. Those folks probably get priced out of it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Some people have said the MU-2 needs to get flown like a jet, and some will even pull the LearBaron argument of "it's really a jet that just has propellers." Personally I don't buy into that part of it. It's not a jet, it's a turboprop, but it's not a turboprop like a King Air (which is supremely forgiving). I'd argue that a type rating with the appropriate training is more important on a IV-P or an MU-2 than some of the VLJs that are specifically engineered to be easy to fly.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. I have enough time in Citation Mustang and Eclipse 500s to say that the relatively modern, straight wing, built-from-the-ground-up-to-be-single-pilot VLJs are pretty easy to fly. Combine benign handling, lots of avionics help, good ergonomics with a type rating, and I think a 1000 hour pilot with a fresh type rating in a Mustang is likely much safer than a typical 1000 hr pilot in a 4P with whatever training he/she/insurance decided on.
 
There's the personal responsibility aspect to the "more money than skills" crowd too.

I have little of either, in the big picture. 150ish hours spread about a decade in mainly Cherokees and a $40k budget. All the time on here and among pilot buddies I get people recommending older Bo's, Mooney 20C's, AA5's even a few Vans. I can afford those planes with my wallet, but my skill set tells me I should stick with the Cherokees, etc. If I suddenly inherit a million bucks I'm not going to venture into buying a tricked out Lancair or Jetprop, because I still wouldn't have the skills for it. Unfortunately, lots of guys just buy how much plane their wallet can afford, skills be damned. We've got one at our airport now, just trained in a 172 and with wet ink is supposedly buying a silver eagle 210.
 
weilke said:
Maybe two years ago we had a guy on beechtalk post his path to purchase of a 4P. He also explained how he didn't need transition training* and knew how to fly it just based on how good of a pilot he is.





* It boiled down to the fact that the lobo instructors require the plane to be insured before they get in and he wasn't willing to pay for insurance.
Click to expand...

I recall there being a big flap about him flying it off his grass strip and the LOBO instructors not willing to allow that, either. Seems like it would have been a decent decision to jst do it the LOBO way until checked out, but he insisted on doing what he wanted from the get-go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top