Why is the Lancair IV-P so dangerous?

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...
I had the same issue for several years on my Maule, except that it was the "we won't even quote that" rate. Only one underwriter would quote them.

Definitely not an airplane problem...it's a very benign airplane.
 
Eric Gleason said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sadly, he's probably a future NTSB statistic.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I had the same issue for several years on my Maule, except that it was the "we won't even quote that" rate. Only one underwriter would quote them.

Definitely not an airplane problem...it's a very benign airplane.
Click to expand...

It's a math problem. Premiums vs payouts.
 
RudyP said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've heard there are people who've gotten type ratings in Eclipse Jets with 150 hours in type. While I think that's a little light, the reality is that an Eclipse is in many ways easier to fly in both normal and emergency situations than your standard old piston twin. The Cirrus Jet is in many ways easier to fly than the SR22. Just make sure you have a mentor pilot with you for a while until your brain can keep up with the speed of the airplane, but systems aren't difficult and the parts the pilot needs to know for operation get simpler. Plus they made the speeds and procedures dirt simple, add to that a beautiful avionics package.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've heard there are people who've gotten type ratings in Eclipse Jets with 150 hours in type. While I think that's a little light, the reality is that an Eclipse is in many ways easier to fly in both normal and emergency situations than your standard old piston twin. The Cirrus Jet is in many ways easier to fly than the SR22. Just make sure you have a mentor pilot with you for a while until your brain can keep up with the speed of the airplane, but systems aren't difficult and the parts the pilot needs to know for operation get simpler. Plus they made the speeds and procedures dirt simple, add to that a beautiful avionics package.
Click to expand...
Speaking of that, Ted. A local guy here went from an SR22 to owning his own Cirrus Vision. Built a custom hangar on field for it too. He's covering the same trips that he flew in the SR22 with the Vision in a fraction of the time. Guess it works out for him. Looks like a wicked awesome airplane! Now I just need to rub noses a little more and try to get a ride. ;)
 
Ryanb said:
Speaking of that, Ted. A local guy here went from an SR22 to owning his own Cirrus Vision. Built a custom hangar on field for it too. He's covering the same trips that he flew in the SR22 with the Vision in a fraction of the time. Guess it works out for him. Looks like a wicked awesome airplane! Now I just need to rub noses a little more and try to get a ride. ;)
Click to expand...

You may have to rub more than noses. :D
 
Todd82 said:
Sadly, he's probably a future NTSB statistic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Since I don't know the guy or his flying skills personally, I prefer not to speculate on the future outcome of his flying. He appears to have a small stable of aircraft that require a fair amount of skill to fly well, much less at all.

I also recall part of the story was that he thought LOBO was far too conservative with their operating limitations, being designed to protect incompetent people from themselves. I can understand the philosophy that the pilot should be taught to fly the airplane to the full extent of its limitations, rather than to stay so far inside the limits that you never get near the plane's potential. If you have the ability and are willing to put in the time to train to those standards, why not?

I used to know people who got wide-eyed when I told them I regularly practiced spins in a Champ. They'd never done them and had heard horror stories, so they assumed that they couldn't be done safely. After all, "stall/spin" is a factor in a lot of accidents...
 
Todd82 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Assuming the AA5 you mention here of the Grumman American persuasion, you'd be fine in it. Do get a checkout with someone familiar with them and use the correct speeds. It's a very easy to fly airplane.
 
Eric Gleason said:
Perhaps. Since I don't know the guy or his flying skills personally, I prefer not to speculate on the future outcome of his flying. He appears to have a small stable of aircraft that require a fair amount of skill to fly well, much less at all.

I also recall part of the story was that he thought LOBO was far too conservative with their operating limitations, being designed to protect incompetent people from themselves. I can understand the philosophy that the pilot should be taught to fly the airplane to the full extent of its limitations, rather than to stay so far inside the limits that you never get near the plane's potential. If you have the ability and are willing to put in the time to train to those standards, why not?

I used to know people who got wide-eyed when I told them I regularly practiced spins in a Champ. They'd never done them and had heard horror stories, so they assumed that they couldn't be done safely. After all, "stall/spin" is a factor in a lot of accidents...
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the guy who is now saying how he can do most maintenance on his Citation by himself?
 
mtuomi said:
Are we talking about the guy who is now saying how he can do most maintenance on his Citation by himself?
Click to expand...

Didn't catch that part. Sounds like him.
 
A question for the guys that are adamant that there is nothing wrong with the IV-P and it's all pilot error-

Has there ever been a serial production airplane of any type, certified, experimental, military, etc, that was truly dangerous other than those that had structural failures in flight? It seems to me that all the planes ever made that made it to any type of serial production go up in the air, maneuver around and land again safely, if you fly it exactly by the numbers, by the book and never screw up. Does that mean there has never been a production aircraft who's design was faulty and contributed to accidents?
 
Dav8or said:
Does that mean there has never been a production aircraft who's design was faulty and contributed to accidents?
Click to expand...

de Havilland Comet had design flaws which caused inflight breakups: "three Comets lost within twelve months in highly publicised accidents, after suffering catastrophic in-flight break-ups. Two of these were found to be caused by structural failure resulting from metal fatigue in the airframe, a phenomenon not fully understood at the time... Design and construction flaws, including improper riveting and dangerous concentrations of stress around some square openings in the fuselage, were ultimately identified. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
 
trenton said:
de Havilland Comet had design flaws which caused inflight breakups: "three Comets lost within twelve months in highly publicised accidents, after suffering catastrophic in-flight break-ups. Two of these were found to be caused by structural failure resulting from metal fatigue in the airframe, a phenomenon not fully understood at the time... Design and construction flaws, including improper riveting and dangerous concentrations of stress around some square openings in the fuselage, were ultimately identified. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
Click to expand...

I think I covered that above when I said-

other than those that had structural failures in flight?
Click to expand...
 
Dav8or said:
I think I covered that above when I said-
Click to expand...

I read it as wanting to excluding structural failures due to pilot error or weather, but would be interested in failures caused by a design flaw. The Comet was doomed to crash. Maybe it could have been a decompression event, incapacitating the crew, and then crashing? That would have fit your criteria, I guess.
 
Dav8or said:
A question for the guys that are adamant that there is nothing wrong with the IV-P and it's all pilot error-

Has there ever been a serial production airplane of any type, certified, experimental, military, etc, that was truly dangerous other than those that had structural failures in flight? It seems to me that all the planes ever made that made it to any type of serial production go up in the air, maneuver around and land again safely, if you fly it exactly by the numbers, by the book and never screw up. Does that mean there has never been a production aircraft who's design was faulty and contributed to accidents?
Click to expand...

A number of early 707's crashed due to an inadequately sized vertical tail. Boeing ultimately retrofitted all of those aircraft.
 
Dav8or said:
Does that mean there has never been a production aircraft who's design was faulty and contributed to accidents?
Click to expand...

A large number of them are described in "Lessons Learned in Aircraft Design" by Dr. Jan Roskam, professor emeritus of Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas.

https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Learned-Aircraft-Design-Details/dp/1884885586

A specific design defect that I will point out is the lack of a fail-safe locking mechanism on the 767 Thrust Reverser. An uncommanded in-flight thrust reverser deployment during cruise caused the crash of Lauda Air flight 004 in 1991. As a result of the accident investigation, there was an AD that required the installation of a thrust reverser sync lock (essentially locking the rotary cable that synchronizes the thrust reverser actuators). The AD was later expanded and sync locks were retrofit to the 737 (classic series) and 747.

FWIW, Lucas UK ended up with the sync lock contract, so good luck up there!

182981086_474627_lp.jpg
 
And don't forget about the DC-10's cargo door and also its vulnerable hydraulics. I think those issues resulted in a total of 4 fatal crashes.
 
Early Tomahawks had those wing mod stall strips for better stall characteristics
 
Dav8or said:
Has there ever been a serial production airplane of any type, certified, experimental, military, etc, that was truly dangerous other than those that had structural failures in flight?
Click to expand...
You didn't specify a time period, however, some versions of Il-2 -- merely the 2nd most produced airplane in the world, with about 35,000 made -- had such a massive aft CG that stalling them was unrecoverable. Things gotten so bad that in 1943 the designers retrofitted new outer wings in the same manner Piper later turned Cherokee into Archer. The new wings had a sweep similar to DC-3 and this alleviated the CG issues somewhat. The pitch stability remained terrible on these throughout. On the other side of the frontlines, Bf-109 had serious issues with ground handling, primarily because Messerschmitt was dumb enough to make the mains fold outwards, like on Beech Sierra. Pilots kept getting killed in landing accidents, because a ground loop in the 109 was far from benign.
 
Last edited:
Todd82 said:
Early Tomahawks had those wing mod stall strips for better stall characteristics
Click to expand...

The really early ones had two stall strips fairly close inboard. Later, they added 2 more (and retrofitted the older airplanes to match). I read stories that the two additional ones didn't help, but never flew one with the original configuration. My Tomahawk had 4 strips and would exhibit a quick wing drop if you were uncoordinated in a stall.
 
zaitcev said:
You didn't specify a time period, however, some versions of Il-2 -- merely the 2nd most produced airplane in the world, with about 35,000 made -- had such a massive aft CG that stalling them was unrecoverable. Things gotten so bad that in 1943 the designers retrofitted new outer wings in the same manner Piper later turned Cherokee into Archer. The new wings had a sweep similar to DC-3 and this alleviated the CG issues somewhat. The pitch stability remained terrible on these throughout. On the other side of the frontlines, Bf-109 had serious issues with ground handling, primarily because Messerschmitt was dumb enough to make the mains fold outwards, like on Beech Sierra. Pilots kept getting killed in landing accidents, because a ground loop in the 109 was far from benign.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Those first versions of those planes worked perfectly fine as long as flown correctly. They took off, maneuvered and safely returned to the ground. If the IL-2 had problems recovering from a spin, well don't ever stall the plane. If the BF-109 was prone to ground loop, then train the pilots better in landing technique. According to the common wisdom on web forums, the problems the Soviet and German air forces were having was with poor training and pilot skills, not the aircraft. Correct?
 
zaitcev said:
On the other side of the frontlines, Bf-109 had serious issues with ground handling, primarily because Messerschmitt was dumb enough to make the mains fold outwards, like on Beech Sierra. Pilots kept getting killed in landing accidents, because a ground loop in the 109 was far from benign.
Click to expand...

The outward folding gear was one of the key design feature of the type. By combining gear and motor mount into one piece Messerschmitt achieved the lower weight that allowed the Bf109 to fly away from it's competitors (at the time of the design decisions, he didnt have to win against the spitfire or Mustang. He had to win against Heinkel and Arado).
 
I think a big part of the 109's ground instability was the narrow track and camber of the MLG.

Another aircraft that had an initial design deficiency was the Lockheed Electra. Due to inadequate engine mount strength and resonant harmonics, three airline versions were lost before the issue was rectified.
 
The DC-10 had its demons, some hidden and some not so hidden. I recently came across a 1972 Air Progress article on the DC-10, which included this:

"Pilots upgrading to the DC-10, after acquiring a comfortable number of hours, have nothing but praise for the machine - with a few reservations. A feeling of uneasiness creeps into a DC-10 pilot conversation when the discussion centers around the subject of total hydraulic failure. There is NO mechanical control system back-up, as in other airline types. The thought of complete loss of all hydraulic systems is quite remote. But should this unfortunate circumstance somehow occur, the aircraft is doomed to certain destruction."​

Seventeen years later there was UA232 at Sioux City, Iowa ...
 
weilke said:
The outward folding gear was one of the key design feature of the type. By combining gear and motor mount into one piece Messerschmitt achieved the lower weight that allowed the Bf109 to fly away from it's competitors (at the time of the design decisions, he didnt have to win against the spitfire or Mustang. He had to win against Heinkel and Arado).
Click to expand...

In addition, the thought was to keep as much of the weight inboard as possible so that the plane could achieve a superior roll rate.
 
Dav8or said:
A question for the guys that are adamant that there is nothing wrong with the IV-P and it's all pilot error-

Has there ever been a serial production airplane of any type, certified, experimental, military, etc, that was truly dangerous other than those that had structural failures in flight? It seems to me that all the planes ever made that made it to any type of serial production go up in the air, maneuver around and land again safely, if you fly it exactly by the numbers, by the book and never screw up. Does that mean there has never been a production aircraft who's design was faulty and contributed to accidents?
Click to expand...

I believe the Cessna 411 has achieved the status you are looking for. A high accident rate in the 411 resulted in an investigation by the FAA. During a test flight with FAA personnel on board, the 411 crashed resulting in 3 more fatalities. Not sure where the 411 stands today, but I would be rather leary on flying one without knowing how the issues with that particular twin were solved.
 
Brad Smith said:
I believe the Cessna 411 has achieved the status you are looking for. A high accident rate in the 411 resulted in an investigation by the FAA. During a test flight with FAA personnel on board, the 411 crashed resulting in 3 more fatalities. Not sure where the 411 stands today, but I would be rather leary on flying one without knowing how the issues with that particular twin were solved.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Rick Durden of AVWeb says otherwise. He claims the the plane is just fine, has been tested with a clean bill of health and all the stories are just OWTs. Again, the pilot community says- pilot error. If a plane goes into production, it can't be wrong.

https://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/pilots_lounge_127_unfairly_maligned_airplanes_198025-1.html
 
Pilawt said:
151 were built (1965-68); 16 are still on the FAA register. No telling how many of those are active.
Click to expand...

Not sure how accurate, but Wiki says 302 built. Anyhow, I think the reason there are so few active now is they are expensive to own and maintain and there are now better alternatives.
 
Brad Smith said:
I believe the Cessna 411 has achieved the status you are looking for. A high accident rate in the 411 resulted in an investigation by the FAA. During a test flight with FAA personnel on board, the 411 crashed resulting in 3 more fatalities. Not sure where the 411 stands today, but I would be rather leary on flying one without knowing how the issues with that particular twin were solved.
Click to expand...

What issues? A 411 is just a parental variant of the 402 and essentially a non-pressurized 421. I don't see 402s crashing left and right, or 421s for that matter. Granted 402s are often flown by 121 operators, so their rate is artificially lower than if they were flown by the private owner basket of deplorables we call our little community of affluent enthusiasts :D
 
Airplanes are like dogs...some are quicker to bite than others. You have to be on top of your game to keep alive in any aircraft, as proved by the many pilots killed in 65 hp tube and rag airplanes as well as 350 hp, pressurized singles costing $800,000. It's a matter of knowing the parameters of your aircraft intimately combined with a bit of luck. Or so it would seem...
 
I have been considering buying a plane.. in the past 2 weeks I have flew left seat demo flights in several planes:

- Cirrus sr22t G6
- lancair lx7 piston
-lancair ES-P
- Lancair ivpt Walter turbine with vortecx winglets and ventral fin

I did power on and power off stalls in each and every plane... I experienced nothing out of the ordinary... The ivpt was a bit squirlier.... But nothing crazy.. kind of like a 427 cobra.. big engine short wheelbase... The ass liked to dance...and I had to be on the pedals a lot, especially during power changes...subtle changes did a lot.. like going from a old Cadillac to a new caddy CTSV... Soft and comfy to corvette engine and suspension and handling euro touring..

I fear the plane because of it's reputation (the 4p), but flying it was not scary...and we didn't spin when stalling... Not at all.,. was it the votecx winglets/ventral? Maybe... I have not flown stock ivpt.. pattern at 115kts and landed about 95kts

I am a new pilot..I don't even trust my own opinion.. and the ivpt fulfills my desired missions... But hey , not looking to die .

I am not saying they were equal and I am not not not a test pilot.. I like all of the planes.. the lx7 is an amazing unit...and is unobtanium for about a year.... the sr22t was king of ergonomics and comfort.. and I don't personally want a piston... I want a turbine..

Regardless of what I end up with, I am committed to safety and will do dual training for as long as it takes to be a safe competent pilot in the aircraft I fly.

Does anyone know what the best glide speed is on the ivpt?

Edit.. found it 120kts best glide ivp
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
What issues? A 411 is just a parental variant of the 402 and essentially a non-pressurized 421. I don't see 402s crashing left and right, or 421s for that matter.
Click to expand...
I don't know about any other aerodynamic or artificial stability augmentation changes, but the 411 has a much smaller vertical tail than all of the other 400-series twins. Maybe it wasn't enough?
 
magyarflyer said:
but some users have no idea of where the FAF or MAP or outer marker or other alphabet soup words mean.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true. I think CFIs should give a basic primer on what the FAF is to their students so that their private pilot students will have some understanding of what IFR traffic is doing. I also think as an IFR pilot, you should try to use descriptions that non-instrument rated pilots will understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top