I’m an expert in airplanes as a whole and I’ve given you links to reports written by Air Force test pilots who happened to also get their own experimentals including Lancairs and who recognize neutral longitudinal stability is a bad thing. If you lack feel for speed, you have problems, and you don’t need to be experienced in the specific model and make to understand this.
Glasair 3 or Lancair Legacy RG a better purchase?
- Thread starter DMD3.
- Start date
I’m an expert in airplanes as a whole and I’ve given you links to reports written by Air Force test pilots who happened to also get their own experimentals including Lancairs and who recognize neutral longitudinal stability is a bad thing. If you lack feel for speed, you have problems, and you don’t need to be experienced in the specific model and make to understand this.
tsts4
En-Route
OK- so no Lancair experience then. Got it.
Plenty of experience with stabilities and lack thereof.
tsts4
En-Route
Bully. Still no actual experience with the model in question. Truth in lending and all that.
There are definitely some bullies on here both in this thread and in POA in general.
Scoundrels too who could look into logical fallacies.
tsts4
En-Route
Without a doubt. But actual first hand experience when expounding opinion as fact is the coin of the realm on this site.
wanttaja
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,667
- Location
- "War-Torn" Portland
- Display Name
- Ron Wanttaja
- Home Airfield
- Twin Oaks Airpark
It's a combination, inextricably linked.
The whole purpose of checking out in the aircraft is to learn the quirks. The problem is, pilots tend to revert back to their basic trainer, when it comes to muscle memory. Homebuilts are not required to meet FAR 23 requirements, though the designers often get compliance as close as they can get it. I flew backseat with Dick Van Grunsven when they were developing the RV-8; he complained that the stick force per g was not where he wanted it.
But...again, there's no requirement to comply. All aircraft are compromises, and the designers of homebuilts often focus on performance rather than handling. There are a number of cases where this has bit the pilots (Polliwagon, Wheeler Express, etc.) so it's certainly not unknown in the homebuilt industry.
Some people are willing to accept the compromises for the performance; the owner of a Lancair 235, for example, has the same engine as a Cessna 150 yet owners would be up in arms if it only matched the performance of the lowly Cessna. Yet you have to pay *somewhere*. Unfortunately, pilots have big egos, and may not want to admit that the plane is more than they can handle. They buy fancy sports cars and wrap them around trees, too, but the odds of survival are higher.
The three Lancair Legacy accidents involving stalls give some interesting insight. CHI08FA224 involved a Private pilot with 1700 hours, but only ten in type. CEN12CA263 had a commercial pilot with 750 total hours, but 160 in type.
The most recent, CEN24FA164, is interesting. Private pilot with 476 hours total time, no record of time-in-type. He had his logbook in the airplane....but it wasn't much help.
The writeup is telling...."The flight instructor who completed the pilot’s flight review on June 10, 2023, reported that the pilot flew to the required standards; however, he noted that without use of the autopilot, the pilot had trouble maintaining the airplane on course. The instructor further reported that he felt the accident airplane was not a good fit for the pilot’s abilities..."
The report on this ends with a section describing the problems inherent with pilots transitioning to high-performance aircraft. It references Advisory Circular 90-190A, "Transition to Unfamiliar Aircraft" (of which I am one of the co-authors) and quotes this segment:
FAA Advisory Circular 90-190A, Transition to Unfamiliar Aircraft, classifies the Lancair Legacy FG airplane as having high-inertia and/or low-drag flight characteristics, meaning that is an
airplane that decelerates slowly when power is removed. This document discusses the inherent risks/hazards of this type of airplane and states in part: Airplanes in this family are generally fast, efficient, and may have significant range; however, the hazard is that unless managed, these airplanes can build excessive speed during critical flight phases such as approach and landing. The risk of unmanaged speed includes overshooting final approach, inadvertent stalls, loss of control, wheel barrowing, and runway excursions.
So, what's to be done?
How do the militaries do it? They weed out those who can't hack it. Not an option in civilian life; an instructor can refuse to sign someone off, but that person can still plop money down on the counter and buy a nice used Lancair or Lamborghini. We don't know why this particular owner decided to buy a Lancair.
What's the alternative? Establish Part 23-like standards for homebuilts? That literally flies in the face of the EAB tradition in the US. IIRC, the Australians test homebuilts, and actually banned the Lancair due to the stability issues and others (believe it was just the early models). The UK has standards homebuilt aircraft have to meet as well.
But not the US. And I don't think the community would allow it, and, at this stage, I don't think the FAA would even try.
Until then, we just have to work on education. After the original article in 2010 came out, someone from LOBO (Lancair Owners and Builders Organization) contacted me to discuss the results. He said the accident rate among those Lancair pilots who took the LOBO-designed training program was much lower than overall.
There are two ways to slice that. One can assume that the training improved knowledge and pilot skills...but one can ALSO assume that someone who seeks out such training is already safety-minded.
I give LOBO a lot of credit, though.
The usual argument against standards is wrong: "We don't want our homebuilts to comply with Part 23, we don't want to fly trucks!"
And, of course, the Pitts Special is a fully-certified airplane. Never flown one, but I have never heard they fly like trucks.
But, still, many popular amateur-built aircraft were also amateur-designed. I fly one. Not every designer is a Van Grunsven, Thorp, or Stits. All of our aircraft are required to have a big "Experimental" sign and a sticker that says they do not comply with airworthiness standards*. All designs are compromises, and those who want their compromises on the side of performance have to understand they may be reaching unfamiliar ground.
The Lancair IV is a good example. High accident rate. High fatality rate.
But...it has performance equal to a WWII fighter, and carries four people. That's a serious attraction.
Ron Wanttaja
*mine is a bit different:
I’ve never driven a Pinto.
I could also see MCAS was implemented in a really stupid manner despite not having a 737 type.
No Airbus type either yet I can confidently say C* alternate law was equally stupid in implementation.
I didn’t give you opinion considering Lancair, I gave you facts. Not opinion as fact but proven facts.
They also flush bad aircraft designs.
tsts4
En-Route
Other people’s facts mainly related to models not in question. But no empirical first hand evidence of your own, and yet you post as some sort of Lancair expert. I’ll leave it to the OP decide if your opinion holds merit as I’m definitely not an expert on anything.
I have about 1700 hours in serial number 2 Lancair 235/340 and an additional 100+ hours in a Lancair 360.
They are great aircraft that are rewarding to fly. A 300 nm cross country can be flown at 200 kts and a total fuel consumption of about 12 gallons. Visibility is tremendous out the bubble canopy. Handling is superb. The ones I've flown are very honest aircraft; they fly the same way every time and don't have surprises. Both of my Lancairs are the dreaded small tail variant.
They do not fly like a C-1xx trainer. If you want that then you should look elsewhere. On my 235/340 especially, the elevator lacked the authority to hold the nose off once the mains touched down upon landing. That can lead to bouncing upon landing. Landings must be done relatively flat to prevent a bounce. I had more elevator authority when I didn't have flaps down. On the 235/340 I routinely landed by flying into ground effect and retracting flaps while airborne. That rotated the nose up, increased the sink rate and resulted in relatively smooth touchdowns. On my 360 I do not do this and it is easy to land; this is likely due to the rearward CG on the 360 whereas the 235/340 CG was nose heavy. Regarding the Legacy, one well known Legacy racer told me his Legacy also lacked elevator authority upon touchdown until he installed the beluga belly mod.
These aircraft must be flown by the numbers. I am never under 100 kts except on takeoff and short final. There have been accidents when guys in a Lancair tried to fly a pattern behind slower aircraft. I've run into some pilots in slower aircraft that get bent out of shape when I either try to coordinate a straight in or fly a high, wide and fast pattern that doesn't match some other traffic.
Are the above flying characteristics enough to condemn the models? I think not. Some would argue that conventional gear aircraft are inherently less safe than tricycle gear aircraft. Does that mean they should be condemned? Again, I think not. Either accept the differences and learn to operate it safely or look elsewhere. Should everyone avoid motorcycles because they are inherently less safe than steel cages?
This discussion has wandered off from the questions @DMD3. asked in the first post. Yes, at 6'3" few of the 235/320/360 variants would fit comfortably. There's probably one or two out there built for your size pilot but you're right to look elsewhere. The Legacy has some advantages over the Glasair, it's faster, has better visibility, better user group support, and looks better. The Glasair has advantages of lower acquisition cost, is aerobatic, reportedly more stout gear, and typically Lycoming powered. Don't know about the Legacy but 360 liability can be had for about $600.
They are great aircraft that are rewarding to fly. A 300 nm cross country can be flown at 200 kts and a total fuel consumption of about 12 gallons. Visibility is tremendous out the bubble canopy. Handling is superb. The ones I've flown are very honest aircraft; they fly the same way every time and don't have surprises. Both of my Lancairs are the dreaded small tail variant.
They do not fly like a C-1xx trainer. If you want that then you should look elsewhere. On my 235/340 especially, the elevator lacked the authority to hold the nose off once the mains touched down upon landing. That can lead to bouncing upon landing. Landings must be done relatively flat to prevent a bounce. I had more elevator authority when I didn't have flaps down. On the 235/340 I routinely landed by flying into ground effect and retracting flaps while airborne. That rotated the nose up, increased the sink rate and resulted in relatively smooth touchdowns. On my 360 I do not do this and it is easy to land; this is likely due to the rearward CG on the 360 whereas the 235/340 CG was nose heavy. Regarding the Legacy, one well known Legacy racer told me his Legacy also lacked elevator authority upon touchdown until he installed the beluga belly mod.
These aircraft must be flown by the numbers. I am never under 100 kts except on takeoff and short final. There have been accidents when guys in a Lancair tried to fly a pattern behind slower aircraft. I've run into some pilots in slower aircraft that get bent out of shape when I either try to coordinate a straight in or fly a high, wide and fast pattern that doesn't match some other traffic.
Are the above flying characteristics enough to condemn the models? I think not. Some would argue that conventional gear aircraft are inherently less safe than tricycle gear aircraft. Does that mean they should be condemned? Again, I think not. Either accept the differences and learn to operate it safely or look elsewhere. Should everyone avoid motorcycles because they are inherently less safe than steel cages?
This discussion has wandered off from the questions @DMD3. asked in the first post. Yes, at 6'3" few of the 235/320/360 variants would fit comfortably. There's probably one or two out there built for your size pilot but you're right to look elsewhere. The Legacy has some advantages over the Glasair, it's faster, has better visibility, better user group support, and looks better. The Glasair has advantages of lower acquisition cost, is aerobatic, reportedly more stout gear, and typically Lycoming powered. Don't know about the Legacy but 360 liability can be had for about $600.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
This has gone way beyond the usual trolling/irrational hatred we usually see.
Let me ask straight out, ffffflats.
Did you lose someone close, to a Lancair accident?
Your dogged damning of Lancairs sounds exactly like when that woman lost her partner to an MU2 crash years ago and she hopped on the pilot boards determined to poison everyone’s mind about the type, and petitioning the FAA to permanently ground the airplane.
Hard to imagine someone putting so much effort into this thread unless there was some emotional involvement.
If I’m right, well.. we’re here for you - it can’t be easy.
Let me ask straight out, ffffflats.
Did you lose someone close, to a Lancair accident?
Your dogged damning of Lancairs sounds exactly like when that woman lost her partner to an MU2 crash years ago and she hopped on the pilot boards determined to poison everyone’s mind about the type, and petitioning the FAA to permanently ground the airplane.
Hard to imagine someone putting so much effort into this thread unless there was some emotional involvement.
If I’m right, well.. we’re here for you - it can’t be easy.
wanttaja
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,667
- Location
- "War-Torn" Portland
- Display Name
- Ron Wanttaja
- Home Airfield
- Twin Oaks Airpark
Lots of very good pilots have been killed flying those bad aircraft designs. Experimental aircraft, for the most part... XP-38, X-2, X-15, YB-49, etc.
"Experimental". Who'd have thought it....
Ron "Never fly the 'A' Model of anything" Wanttaja
Hmmm….
The noted location is less than 1/2 NM from the end of the runway.
www.clarin.com
Texas plane crash: Lancair IV-P goes down in Fort Worth with only pilot on board
Fort Worth fire and police crews responded to a fiery plane crash near Hicks Airfield on Wednesday morning. The FAA confirmed that the aircraft, a Lancair IV-P, had only the pilot on board.
www.clarin.com
Ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
next time anyone wishes to complain about my writing being tedious, you should try that guy's off-site word salad for size....
Paging the POA tailhook guild: one of your coo coo birds is loose.
Paging the POA tailhook guild: one of your coo coo birds is loose.
tsts4
En-Route
Really professor? Man you really hate Lancairs don’t you? Weird for someone with no experience with the aircraft and no apparent tie to the community.Hmmm….
The noted location is less than 1/2 NM from the end of the runway.
Texas plane crash: Lancair IV-P goes down in Fort Worth with only pilot on board
Fort Worth fire and police crews responded to a fiery plane crash near Hicks Airfield on Wednesday morning. The FAA confirmed that the aircraft, a Lancair IV-P, had only the pilot on board.
Last edited:
Your cardiologist probably hasn’t had a heart attack either yet it is in your interest to listen to them.
Some pilots shouldn't try to fly with a tailwheel, design flaw? Some pilots can't keep up with a Cirrus, design flaw? The U2 and SR-71 aren't as easy as Cessna's. Lancair's are challenging for some, kudos for recognizing they aren't for you. If more pilots recognized this the accident rate in many designs would drop. But we should also recognize there are pilots who can handle them just fine.Hmmm….
The noted location is less than 1/2 NM from the end of the runway.
Texas plane crash: Lancair IV-P goes down in Fort Worth with only pilot on board
Fort Worth fire and police crews responded to a fiery plane crash near Hicks Airfield on Wednesday morning. The FAA confirmed that the aircraft, a Lancair IV-P, had only the pilot on board.
tsts4
En-Route
You still haven’t explained your disdain for a plane you know nothing about other than what you’ve read and reposted. If you don’t like them simply for the reasons you’ve stated, say that and let folks draw their own conclusions but stop coming across like you’re an expert on the type because nothing you’ve posted indicates you are.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 8,868
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
- Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
- Home Airfield
- KPUJ
Here’s another Lancair report for you, this one on a IV TP
That’s not just neutral longitudinal, that is cases of negative longitudinal noted.
That’s not just neutral longitudinal, that is cases of negative longitudinal noted.
Attachments
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
But...Lancair...
wanttaja
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,667
- Location
- "War-Torn" Portland
- Display Name
- Ron Wanttaja
- Home Airfield
- Twin Oaks Airpark
Y'know, all we need is for Dan Gryder to buy a Lancair with a Viking engine. The trifecta!
Ron Wanttaja
tsts4
En-Route
I think at this point we can just type airplane instead of Lancair and start posting reports on anything that has ever flown since relevance doesn’t appear to be a criterium in this thread.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
Or he could just borrow someone's and crash it for them. That's the recent trend.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Or effluence perhaps.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
Don't forget you have to advertise yourself as a "guru" first, then proceed to crash your benefactor's toy.
Sierra_Hotel
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,272
- Display Name
- Sierra_Hotel
- Home Airfield
- KLBX
Throw in some alternative minimums and we've got ourselves a party.
A Lancair with a UL 520T would also be interesting.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
He answered it above, but the context he left out was his complaint about cabin size. Frankly I think it's burying the lead tbh.
A freggin' piper warrior can do that payload/range mission on pennies on the dollar; matter of fact I used to do that exact mission on a 28-161. 420NM solo, yes non-stop even with winds... amazing what kitty can inspire a man to accomplish in this life *cue Viking stormy sail music*.
Problem for the OP is that EABs are not roomy airplanes: They're just an engine with a Charleston Classic chair ziptied to it (and in the case of Lanc and Glas, one with the back hinge broken lol) relative to spam cans. There's definitively a tax for being in the 99th percentile of height in this hobby, good bad or indifferent.
The RV-14A (since the options in the OP were all trikes) was fielded exactly to this demographic. Well, technically it was to market to Amerifats, but tall people end up getting carried by that ergonomics net. At any rate, shocker, it got priced out of orbit.
I hate facbuilt rules, but when the opportunity cost is dang near median US housing capex (the so called "cheapest" part of aircraft ownership...gmafb), yeah screw RVs. Grit teeth, buy a spam can and hangar fairy it up if I'm too long to shoehorn myself into a Glasair II. It's not even close on the all-in, for that borderline banal mission set. You wanna be right or you wanna fly home type of thing.
He answered it above, but the context he left out was his complaint about cabin size. Frankly I think it's burying the lead tbh.
A freggin' piper warrior can do that payload/range mission on pennies on the dollar; matter of fact I used to do that exact mission on a 28-161. 420NM solo, yes non-stop even with winds... amazing what kitty can inspire a man to accomplish in this life *cue Viking stormy sail music*.
Problem for the OP is that EABs are not roomy airplanes: They're just an engine with a Charleston Classic chair ziptied to it (and in the case of Lanc and Glas, one with the back hinge broken lol) relative to spam cans. There's definitively a tax for being in the 99th percentile of height in this hobby, good bad or indifferent.
The RV-14A (since the options in the OP were all trikes) was fielded exactly to this demographic. Well, technically it was to market to Amerifats, but tall people end up getting carried by that ergonomics net. At any rate, shocker, it got priced out of orbit.
I hate facbuilt rules, but when the opportunity cost is dang near median US housing capex (the so called "cheapest" part of aircraft ownership...gmafb), yeah screw RVs. Grit teeth, buy a spam can and hangar fairy it up if I'm too long to shoehorn myself into a Glasair II. It's not even close on the all-in, for that borderline banal mission set. You wanna be right or you wanna fly home type of thing.
A freggin’ Warrior won’t do it at the speed though.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 8,868
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
- Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
- Home Airfield
- KPUJ
Add on that you're 6' 3", and let me throw a curveball at you.
C 182 RG. You'll have speed enough ( 150 kts ) for those trips, predictable maintenance costs, available maintenance, and you'll fit comfortably in it.
True and somewhat compelling qualities of the 182 line, but they're completely different handling aircraft. It's like comparing grampas old truck to a rally car. Also the lancair or glasair is going to have significantly lower cost maintenance in addition to much better fuel efficiency.
If one has a need for more than 2 seats or wants to carry much more than a handbag, that 182rg may be a better option.
This! Parts are much lower than for certified aircraft.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 8,868
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
- Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
- Home Airfield
- KPUJ
Yep, Experimental is less for parts. And you can wrench on it yourself.
But hey, it’s only money.
But hey, it’s only money.