CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
You may have to rub more than noses.
Lol
Why is the Lancair IV-P so dangerous?
- Thread starter RyanB
- Start date
Lol
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,999
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
If you are a new pilot, a IV-P is not for you.
It doesn't mean that it is completely impossible to fly safely as a new pilot. But the NTSB has records showing that even experienced pilots have issues with the things. I've got 3,000 hours and fly the MU-2, which has a reputation for being a handful. With 165 hours in it now and about 2,600 hours of multi time previous (including 100 hours turbine time), I have a lot of respect for it and can say it is a terrible choice for someone new to flying and especially new to twins.
I love the IV-P, I'd love to fly one. Work your way up to it.
Thank you... !!! I really appreciate your advice
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,585
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
@Davidl13
FYI, @Ted DuPuis underplayed many aspects of being a handful.
As stall speed increases, simple geometry means the speed required in a turn goes up proportionately. If you touchdown speed is 95knots, you stall speed is not much under that, assume 90 knots for this discussion. That means you are carrying a crap load more energy when you crash compared to most certified aircraft. Further, a 30 degree bank you are looking at needing a speed of roughly 100 KIAS (10% increase; rule of thumb) to maintain altitude. Now overbank a little to 45 degrees, your stall speed is now pushing 120 KIAS (30% increase; rule of thumb). When you are looking over your shoulder to find when to turn, eyes outside the cockpit watching the plane on final to manage timing.... If you fly the pattern at 105 KIAS like you stated, you leave basically zero margin for error on bank, flight pattern, slowing down (do not even consider S curves)....
There are many reasons insurance companies do not touch these planes. Insurance companies are great levelers, look at what they are willing to insure, and for how much.
Lastly, as much as I practice, and much as I get regular retraining, at the end of the day I have to consider myself average or a bit below for statistical purposes. This means, using an outside statistical method to find out what is "safer", and if something carries additional risk, why? And what benefit does it bring?
Tim
FYI, @Ted DuPuis underplayed many aspects of being a handful.
As stall speed increases, simple geometry means the speed required in a turn goes up proportionately. If you touchdown speed is 95knots, you stall speed is not much under that, assume 90 knots for this discussion. That means you are carrying a crap load more energy when you crash compared to most certified aircraft. Further, a 30 degree bank you are looking at needing a speed of roughly 100 KIAS (10% increase; rule of thumb) to maintain altitude. Now overbank a little to 45 degrees, your stall speed is now pushing 120 KIAS (30% increase; rule of thumb). When you are looking over your shoulder to find when to turn, eyes outside the cockpit watching the plane on final to manage timing.... If you fly the pattern at 105 KIAS like you stated, you leave basically zero margin for error on bank, flight pattern, slowing down (do not even consider S curves)....
There are many reasons insurance companies do not touch these planes. Insurance companies are great levelers, look at what they are willing to insure, and for how much.
Lastly, as much as I practice, and much as I get regular retraining, at the end of the day I have to consider myself average or a bit below for statistical purposes. This means, using an outside statistical method to find out what is "safer", and if something carries additional risk, why? And what benefit does it bring?
Tim
Well..I live 500 nm from anything.. and anything is 500nm more to something...
So I want to be able to go 500 mile legs.. so I would like to travel 1) pressurized and 2) 300+ knts, 3) carry my wife and 2 Belgian malinois 4) hoping around $500k...5) ultimately fly it myself
And the Lance ivpt fits that..well it's a bit tight.. might not fit the dogs.. but none of that matters if I crash...
What do you recommend as a good plane to make my way toward that end?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,826
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Piper Saratoga, then step up to a Malibu, then maybe a Piper Jetprop conversion.
I was looking at the Malibu.. .. looks to me like the saratoga is effectively an UNpressurized Malibu?
I may just go to a Cirrus sr22t.. which looks ridiculously overpriced.. but the Piper is big and boring.. I don't need 6 seats...and I am not seeing what cabin class buys me... And while the Piper series may accomplish a task.. I really don't like them...from a click on picture perspective.... Like buying an edsel or Ford taurus station wagon... yikes.. I really don't like Piper..
Last edited:
ktup-flyer
En-Route
Looks to me like the Matrix is the unpressurized version of the Malibu
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,826
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
The Saratoga is a great 6 place 150 knot airplane. The Malibu is a pressurized, higher flying, faster airplane than a Saratoga. It is much more forgiving than the Lancair. The next step after the Malibu is a Malibu with a turbine on the front - the Jetprop conversion. I wouldn't be interested in a Lancair IV at any price - it is very fast cross country airplane, but in that quest handling qualities and stall speed were sacrificed.
BrianNC
En-Route
Saratoga is definitely not an unpressurized Malibu. Two totally different airplanes. Matrix is the unpressurized version of the Malibu as you said.
I can see the matrix is a direct comparison UNpressurized... The saratoga looks similar.. but a different airframe.. cabin class, 6 place.. either way you are climbing across seats to get to the left seat... I don't get why a pilot would want to get in the passenger side
Last edited:
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,585
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
If you want pressurized, not many choices and the OpEx is a lot higher.
Pressurized is PA-46, Cessna P210. Both likely run about $300 to $350 an hour.
Or you are in a twin. Like the Aerostar (my favorite, and so fun to fly, plus the fastest, you run with the old turboprops), or P Baron, Duke or Cessna twin. All the twins run between 450 and 600 an hour. You can get a good airframe for 200k, and spend 100k on avionics and cosmetic stuff and have an awesome plane. Still old though...
The PA-46 with 6 seats only flies 6 about 200 miles. To go 500 miles, it really is a 2+2 plane. So it fits your mission perfectly. At 500k, you can pick avionics, engine and airframe age to get the best plane for you. Go fly one, with your wife...
If flying over inhospitable land consider a DA42 and the Cirrus SR22 would the newish and more modern choices but both unpressurized. Both are realistic $200 an hour planes.
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
A Saratoga is not cabin class and has no similarity to a Malibu or its descendents, other than that they are both made by Piper.
I thought cabin class was a design where the 4 spot club (or non club) seating was behind the pilot and copilot... What makes something cabin class?
I love the aerostar... But after flying a turbo prop , I don't think I ever want a piston aircraft... Smoother, easier, quieter more powerful, more reliable.. but apparently I have to suffer for a while with planes I don't want.. rather than just train to fly the plane I do want...
ktup-flyer
En-Route
No. The PA-46 has an airstair. That's cabin class.
A staircase of any sort is what makes something a cabin class???
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,585
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Pretty much. Go test fly the DA42. Quiet and smoother than the Meridian or the KA90 or KA200. Slower and unpressurized but a lot cheaper...
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I appreciate what the other board members are trying to advise you on here, but I don't think you have to go through five generations of crappy Piper planes to get the airplane you want. Nor do I think you need 3000 hours. When the big issues with something like a Lancair are its squirrely characteristics then I don't see how having 3000 hours in a Piper Saratoga will make you a safer Lancair pilot, in fact, it might make you more dangerous because you will have gotten all this muscle memory flying something that is the airplane equivalent of a dump truck..
Everybody is different, everybody's skill set and judgment are different, and while statistics provide a meaningful financial estimator to insurance companies, they are in no way respective of my own abilities
If I were in your shoes I would do the same thing and just buy the plane I want, be very smart and disciplined about a training program, and if I need to bring an experienced pilot with me for the first 200 hrs then so be it.. I think that's a better option than buying something you don't want and doesn't fit your mission that you will ultimately have to unlearn all these different flying habits and relearn new ones
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Diamond makes really cool products, I wish I saw more of them around the local airports..
UNpressurized..? I'd rather buy a first class commercial ticket for the rest of my life... And i would still save a ton if money... Than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have to wear a nose tube or mask... That simply sounds like the worst experience... And a level of suffering that one should not have to spend a crapload of money to self imposey.. it is possible that I simply don't have enough money for my mission to be accomplished in the way I want
ElPaso Pilot
En-Route
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,510
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
You're not winning much sympathy here with the crowd that puts up with the horrible level of "suffering" you reference.
My goodness -- its hard to even mention the shame of having to get in from the passenger side.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,585
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Nah, I fly 500 miles all the time in an SR22 at 7k to 11k. Never wear O2. I detest it.
I would do the same in a DA42.
Tim
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
ktup-flyer
En-Route
Fly under 12500ft and it isn't an issue... Not sure why you think you have to be in the flight levels for a 500nm trip
Good point.. I assumed to achieve the speed I want, I would have to..
And to others comments...
yes ,I do require that I don't have to crawl, climb , or squeeze my way through to.my seat... I require the same of every transportation vehicle I own..I am amazed that airplane companies have gotten away with such poor ergonomics .. I suspect that is all changing... Cirrus and diamond are thinking about humans.. on some level... Perhaps with our current leadership supporting less regulations.. the faa will be directed to get the heck out of the way of post 1950 innovation in this industry.. seriously.. do I need a $100k hammer to get a 6 way power seat.. it is safe to say, really comfortable and supportive power adjustable seats with power lumbar supports, heat and cool air , work reliably.. Cadillac, BMW etc...
As for pressurization.. I am ahead of the curve on my desire.. but this seems like a no brainier... Should be standard and automated..
As for ergonomics.. the side stick is far and away the most natural for.me...yokes seem mostly in the way.. and the center stick on the diamonds.. also force an unnatural.position and are easily hit by a passenger (co pilot seat) moving around or getting something out of the back
Last edited:
Very true, we flew a pattern in the A4 super fox where we rolled wings level just before the left wheel touched. The 757 is very comfortable intercepting final at 500 feet if your op specs approve.
ktup-flyer
En-Route
How fast are you wanting to go?
Approx 280-300 ktas and burn about 28-35gph
How fast do you cruise in the Sr 22? Over 200ktas?
Last edited:
No doubt it known as unforgiving... Not a good quality..
Rdd claims to have fixed the problem with the lx7
Vortecx claims to have greatly reduced the problem with their winglets/ventral/rudder mods
I have flown both (lx7 piston 350hp, ivpt Walter 750hp with mods)
I am not a test pilot.... The iv-pt was definitely squirly on power changes... More foot work...I did power on and off stalls on both.. lx7 was more stable.. no spins in either... Whew...
Neither of these planes, lx7 or moded ivpt have had independent testing.... For safety and sounds control/recovery... which concerns me greatly... Anyone can claim anything...
ktup-flyer
En-Route
Lancair is about your only option...
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Yes!!
Seriously. It's egregious that Cessna and Piper are effectively pedaling the same thing today that they were in 1950. F that. It's 2018. There's plenty of people with serious money who can buy planes, but they expect a modern product; not something built in 1950 with a G1000 awkwardly shoe horned in
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
170 to 185.. depending on some factors like weight, G3, G5, altitude, etc., but that's a typical range. At 8K I usually get around 182. These are TAS
It is a *very* comfortable product ergonimcally. Great cross country platform
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
The 190+ is a little optimistic down low, this may have been a wind change, but the 185 true is typical, pic below
I left seat flew several planes a few weeks ago and far and and away the most comfortable was the Cirrus g6 sr22t.. my only real complaint about comfort was that the seat glide was angled back and I had a hard time getting it to slide far enough forward... (Because i was litteraly sliding uphill.sitting on a flat surface)..If it were electric it would have solved the issue... the seat was comfortable, roomy and supportive, the back seat was far more roomy and comfortable than my luxury suv..it flew beautifully
I was blown away by the ergonomics . Any chasing of speed I am doing is for certain at the expense of comfort and ergonomics compared to the Cirrus sr22t... That 500nm tyoucal mission of mine would be 1.5hrs instead if 2.5 hrs.. that is significant.
The lx7 was liveable, but only because it was so much faster... If speed were equal.. hands down the cirrus.. no competition...
As for price, the G6 was $950k.. which seems crazy high for it's speed and lack of pressurized cabin (the lx7 is $800k for tsio 550 cont. W 5.5 psi cabin and 250-260ktas at elevation and 68 stall speed vs 215ktas at elevation for Cirrus) +50ktas is a big number...
Do you know if the G3 is as comfortable... ? How significantly have they changed over the version numbers? I am thinking my best bet may be to train in a Cirrus for a year or two and see if I can afford an lx7 at a later date, when I am more skilled and experienced... Too many people are warning me about the unforgiving nature of the iv-pt
Last edited:
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,247
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I actually think that's a very logical progression plan to be honest. There are a lot of rumors about the Cirrus as well, that it will spin if it stalls, etc., but honestly most of them are completely unfounded, the plane just goes a little faster and demands a little more focus than a Skyhawk. If you get really good at flying and handling a turbo Cirrus then I think you can carry those skills over to another higher performance airplane more easily than if you come from something like a Saratoga
As far as differences, I started flying an SR20 G2 back in 2011, then did a transition course for 20 hours in a G5 SR22 turbo, and now I'm flying an SR22TN G3. I fly about 100 to 150 hours in a year.. mission is purely pleasure and covers San Diego up to San Francisco / Napa / and out towards the Henderson and Lake Havasu area
From a comfort perspective they were all *very* comfortable, no real discernible difference, other than the SR22 I flew were both Garmin perspective planes and the SR20 was an avidyne 430 panel. The G3 and G5 felt like they have a better fit and finish than the G2, but I cannot tell a difference between a G3 G5 and G6 from a fit and finish perspective. Both crazy comfortable, and the only plane my wife would not only not hate flying in, but would actually enjoy the trips in
Oh, the G3 is noticeably faster than the G5, I believe that has to do with the gross weight increase of the G5..
Some hardcore Cirrus guys can go into all the differences, but in a super cliff notes version the G3 model saw the biggest improvements (IMHO) over the prior ones with a different ramp stance, wing setup and structure, etc., you can see that difference in price when you look at used planes comparing G1/G2 to G3. The G5 is largely the same airplane but has a gross weight increase which also necessitated some beefing up of the parachute, and you can extend the flaps at a much higher airspeed.. which honestly makes energy management super easy with that massive composite propeller in the front and the ability to drop your first notch of flaps at 150 knots
the newest G6 has a whole different nav light setup on the wing tips which looks kind of cool and there are some improvements on the interior as well but otherwise I consider everything from the Perspective G3 to the Perspective G6 more or less comparable
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Here is what I have been told by several Lancair IV pilots. The handling qualities are different but manageable. What is deadly is that it is designed to fly in the flight levels, but is missing two important tools that any other aircraft in the flight levels have: Onboard WX Radar, and deicing. Weather can get particularly nasty in the lower flight levels, and you need those tools to help you deal with it. So you have a very fast airplane, a little difficult to handle, that has a wing that doesn't handle ice well with no de-icing capability. Add the higher stall speed and high descent rate power off that means any off airport landing is going to happen quickly and with a lot of energy.
I'm not saying it is a bad airplane necessary, but just unforgiving, especially for a lesser experienced pilot. It is easy to get wowed by the performance numbers while ignoring the other end of the envelope.
I'm not saying it is a bad airplane necessary, but just unforgiving, especially for a lesser experienced pilot. It is easy to get wowed by the performance numbers while ignoring the other end of the envelope.
Stephen Poole
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 369
- Location
- Birmingham, Alabama
- Display Name
Display name:
Professor31
Look, I'm on your side with your complaints about how little airplanes have changed in 50 years. I'm also on your side about the comfort level. I'm not looking for speed like you are (my ultimate goal is a Tecnam P2010), but if I was, I'd probably choose a Mooney. That won't have the comfort that you're looking for, but they're pretty fast and economical. Van's makes some fast planes, too.
Pressurization is part and parcel of the usual problem with all aircraft: weight. Larger airliners can be pressurized because they're big enough to spread the cost across a hundred or more butts. In a lighter aircraft, weight is critical.
Pressurization requires a sealed fuselage that is also strong enough to handle the pressure. Take, for example, a plane with a pressure differential of 5 PSI. That's enough for modest comfort, but at high altitudes, this means that you have 5 pounds of pressure pushing on every square inch of the cabin. You can instantly spot a pressurized Cessna 210 from the smaller windows. It's just math: say a surface is 10" x 10" -- that's 100 square inches. You have FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS of pressure trying to push that panel outwards. Multiply that by the surface area of the entire cabin, and you have mind-boggling pressures. That takes a lot of reinforcement, which adds weight.
(Actually, I'm impressed that Cessna and Piper have been able to do it in such small planes.)
I'll let the more experienced folks here speak to the rest, but if you want speed AND comfort AND pressurization, yes, you will either be spending a ton of money, or you're going to fly first class commercial.
In the Cirrus world..The SR22 TN G3 is the target I am looking at..at.. in the cessna world the p210 with the tsio normalized 550 conversion... they are virtually the same price and speed... i have not sat or flown a p210.. and it has more space with retractable gear and pressutization.... So a more complex aircraft.... Any 210 folks out there?
If you find yourself in need of adventure.. cmon up to Bozeman, MT (BZN).. love to meet and see the G3.. talk planes.. have a meal.. etc.. we have a guest house with your name on it..
. Thanks for so much good info
.. and that goes for the many others who contributed as well...
All the ones I have seen have some sort of de-icing added..tks thermawing or this other one I don't remember the name.. it's electronic and makes the wing expand a bit .. but it's not a boot