Glassair IIRG vs. Lancair 360

Dav8or

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Display Name

Display name:
Dave
Sometimes I think of a day beyond the Mooney and these airplanes seem to more accurately meet my mission profile and interest. I really don't need the back seat. I really wish I could get a plane like one of these in aluminum, but it is what it is. I'm not changing planes anytime soon, but any thoughts of one over the other? Assume the same engine, prop and avionics.
 
That's a really good question!!

I'd take the lance, unless I wanted to do aerobatics then I'd go for the glass.
As for metal, these planes would not be what they are if they were not composite.

The top dog in this realm is the WLC-1, 210hp 260mph cruse at 75% 4 seat with 1000lb load

InFlight%20Solo.jpg
 
Swearingen SX300. You're welcome.

Ummm... no. No thank you. I do not want an orphaned fiberglass airplane made decades ago with a six cylinder, big bore engine.

I prefer a later model plane with a more economical four cylinder engine in it.

I'm sure the SX300 is great, I just don't want one. There used to be one based at KOAK when I was there. It was painted red all over and it sat out on a tie down all the time. It had visible cracks in the gel coat on the surface, but the owner flew it anyways. I was told how fast it was by the ramp guys. I always thought... man that thing looks fast, but no way I'd fly it. Anyhow, it has more to do with availability and four cylinder engines than anything else.
 
I mentioned the swearingen because it is aluminum and is built for a similar load. It does gobble a bit more gas but its considerably faster. Total fuel for a longer flight might be similar. Get a 360.
 
The lancair is a good airplane but its not as strong as the glasair. The lancair may be slightly more efficient for the horsepower but if you are a larger pilot I think you would like the Glasairs cockpit better. Also, if you have any desire for a little aerobatics, the glasair is the way to go. As for the aluminum desire over the composit, I don't see it. There has never been an in-flight failure of a glasair airframe. They are bullet proof and over built. I have no worries about my glasair structurally and I would take in over an aluminum airframe every time?
 
Dave, you need to sit in each. I've been in the Lancair, which I think is as sweet a plane as there ever was, but it was tight. Have only been in the empty cabin of a Glassair under construction and it seemed much roomier.... :dunno:

There will be some of each at Arlington, WA next month should you care to go up. We go from Placerville, Davis and Columbia every year.
 
That's a really good question!!

The top dog in this realm is the WLC-1, 210hp 260mph cruse at 75% 4 seat with 1000lb load

InFlight%20Solo.jpg

I have never heard of, nor seen one of those before! How many were ever built? Were they kits, or plans built? A little to eclectic for me. I'd like some factory and owner support for my plane. Sounds pretty cool though.
 
I mentioned the swearingen because it is aluminum and is built for a similar load. It does gobble a bit more gas but its considerably faster. Total fuel for a longer flight might be similar. Get a 360.

I had no idea the SX300 was aluminum. There used to be a red one based at KOAK that I used to walk by a lot, and the wings were completely smooth, like composite and it had visible cracks in the surface, so I assumed it was fiberglass construction. What I realize now is that the builder, or someone after, must have used a lot of Bondo to smooth the wing out. Thanks for setting me straight on the SX300.

Anyhow, it's too expensive, uses too much runway, too high of a landing speed, too complicated (or so it sounds), too much engine and too little support.

Anyhow, here's a crazy turbine powered one for sale at only $350,000!
IMAG0046.jpg
 
Dave, you need to sit in each. I've been in the Lancair, which I think is as sweet a plane as there ever was, but it was tight. Have only been in the empty cabin of a Glassair under construction and it seemed much roomier.... :dunno:

I will have to sit in each. I've been a big Lancair 200/235/320/360/Legacy fan for years based pretty much on looks and what I've read the plane can do. It does have draw backs though and the more I read about the Glassair, the more I like what I read. Ultimately though, the seating position/ergonomics and the view out the window are real important factors for me.
 
As for the aluminum desire over the composit, I don't see it. There has never been an in-flight failure of a glasair airframe. They are bullet proof and over built. I have no worries about my glasair structurally and I would take in over an aluminum airframe every time?

My desire for aluminum doesn't have that much to do with airframe strength with regards to flight stresses. It's more about the quality of construction by the builder (not me), the life span of composite is still a bit of a ???, the ability to repair and work with fiberglass and finally the effect of temperature on the structure.

It's not a deal breaker for me, but all things equal, I'd rather have aluminum.
 
I have never heard of, nor seen one of those before! How many were ever built? Were they kits, or plans built? A little to eclectic for me. I'd like some factory and owner support for my plane. Sounds pretty cool though.

They were kits sold for just over 40 grand back in the 90s. Probably only a couple dozen flying today. They also used to make a single seat plane called a Lightning Bug. Neat little aircraft with fixed mains and a retractable nose wheel.

You can do a search on White Lightning kit plane and see a couple articles on it. A guy by the name of Nick Jones designed it. Won several speed awards back in the 80s. Beautiful aircraft that just wasn't marketed properly. I heard rumors about flaws in the structural wing design but not sure if true. Controller just had a used one for sale recently for $85,000.

When I did ATC in S.C. I used to talk to Mr Jones all the time. His private strip was only about 10 miles north of our air station. He would fly in and out with his C-210 quite often. His son took over the business in the middle 90s. Their factory used to be out of RBW before they went bankrupt. I used to watch Nick's son flying his White Lightning cruising anywhere from 220-230 kts on radar and I just had to get a ride. I hitched a ride one day and flew from their strip to the factory and back. We did about 215 GS up and about 220 down. All on a Continental 210hp. Of course this performance has sacrifices. Not the largest cockpit, an extremely sloped windscreen, and aft facing passengers. Still a blast to fly though.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully coma24 will chime in here as well. He and I had a similar conversation when he was down here and I'm curious about the "vs" comparison as well.

I'm pre-disposed to the Glasair and he loves his Lance, so I'm glad to read some more opinion on this.

P.S. That White Lighting is freaking AMAZING! I love that kind of design style. So I'll take one!
 
Last edited:
They're very comparable and each one is built and equipped differently. They're pretty unforgiving planes but VERY fast and VERY efficient. The Lancair has just a bit more ramp appeal than the Glasair to me.
 

Attachments

  • lancairrunup.jpg
    lancairrunup.jpg
    404.1 KB · Views: 72
Sometimes I think of a day beyond the Mooney and these airplanes seem to more accurately meet my mission profile and interest. I really don't need the back seat. I really wish I could get a plane like one of these in aluminum, but it is what it is. I'm not changing planes anytime soon, but any thoughts of one over the other? Assume the same engine, prop and avionics.

I own a Lancair 235/320. Almost bought a Glasair but ended up getting the Lancair. Each has advantages over the other.
Factory support - Lancair
Stronger gear - Glasair
Better speed on same motor - Lancair
Better visibility over nose on ground - Glasair
Better looking - subjective but I prefer Lancair
More fuel capacity / range - Glasair
Better useful load - Glasair
Also, I believe the Glasairs were built with larger flaps and increased flap range which affords the ability of a pilot to induce drag. This is a very important safety feature as these planes are super slippery and when the nose is pointed down they gain speed quickly. In an engine out scenario, I would really like to have better flaps or speed brakes because slips in my Lancair are just about completely ineffective. Thus, on approach I typically come in very flat with power. If I try to come in at a steeper angle I am likely to overshoot and it is not due to my having too few hours in this - I have about 800 hours in my Lancair.
 
How does low speed handling compare between the two?
 
Completely agree with FORANE. Only thing to add is aerobatics for Glasair. Not that a Lancair couldn't do it because it's just as strong but it's legal for a Glasair.
 
Completely agree with FORANE. Only thing to add is aerobatics for Glasair. Not that a Lancair couldn't do it because it's just as strong but it's legal for a Glasair.

Beg to differ on that one, I've been up close and personal with both as kits. The glasair is far more stout in design. As far as what it is "certified" to do? It's an experimental. You can ignore the kit manufacturer and do what ever maneuvers you want it certified for during flight testing. That said, I wouldn't get close to a tail slide or any high g maneuver in a lancair.
 
Beg to differ on that one, I've been up close and personal with both as kits. The glasair is far more stout in design. As far as what it is "certified" to do? It's an experimental. You can ignore the kit manufacturer and do what ever maneuvers you want it certified for during flight testing. That said, I wouldn't get close to a tail slide or any high g maneuver in a lancair.

Actually I'm reading that a 320 lists approved aerobatic maneuvers in the flight manual. I suppose the 360 is the same???

At any rate, yes a homebuilder can list anything in testing. My Velocity is recommended at 2400 LBS max gross but the builder tested it to 2600 Lbs. The builder informed me that handling characteristics were marginal at that weight. Same goes for aerobatics in a Velocity. While Scott Swing has done basic aerobatics he chose not to approve any in the flight manual. Same reason why Rutan and Puffer didn't approve them in their aircraft. They aren't designed for it and liability reasons.

So for me personally, I'd rather stick with doing maneuvers that the manufacturer has approved and not something the builder tested once.
 
How does low speed handling compare between the two?

This is an area I'm VERY interested in. It would seem that the Glasair would have the edge here. One of my biggest concerns about both designs is the engine out, forced landing off field scenario. From what I've seen, composite construction doesn't hold up all that well when the wings hit the dirt and so the slower the better IMO.

Related to this thinking is, which has the better glide ratio?
 
Actually I'm reading that a 320 lists approved aerobatic maneuvers in the flight manual. I suppose the 360 is the same???

At any rate, yes a homebuilder can list anything in testing. My Velocity is recommended at 2400 LBS max gross but the builder tested it to 2600 Lbs. The builder informed me that handling characteristics were marginal at that weight. Same goes for aerobatics in a Velocity. While Scott Swing has done basic aerobatics he chose not to approve any in the flight manual. Same reason why Rutan and Puffer didn't approve them in their aircraft. They aren't designed for it and liability reasons.

So for me personally, I'd rather stick with doing maneuvers that the manufacturer has approved and not something the builder tested once.

My Velocity was also certified at 2600 lbs. I flew it at gross fairly regularly and while I wouldn't call the flight characteristics marginal, I would call them uncomfortable. At gross on a 95 degree day, I wan't comfortable with anything less than a 4,000 ft runway. She also had a rather uncomfortable and hard to describe wallow ... felt like her back end sunk in turbulence at gross. Like I said, flew her all the time like that without problem, but she was MUCH more pleasant at 1800-2200 lbs and all around fun to fly.

Also, I would not approach a canard such as the Velocity at all the way I would approach a Glassair or Lanceair when it comes to aerobatics (disclaimer - I don't know squat about aerobatics, but I am an aero eng). With the heavy engine in the rear, a departure from control will certainly end ... how shall we say ... badly. While it may be inadvisable to consider a tail slide in a Lancair, the only way out of a tail slide in a Velocity will be with a parachute. A canard buys a LOT of safety advantages, but aerobatics in a LongEze or Velocity needs to stay out of the realm of 0 airspeed maneuvers. Gravity will not return such a craft to controlled flight if airspeed is completely lost.
 
This is an area I'm VERY interested in. It would seem that the Glasair would have the edge here. One of my biggest concerns about both designs is the engine out, forced landing off field scenario. From what I've seen, composite construction doesn't hold up all that well when the wings hit the dirt and so the slower the better IMO.

Related to this thinking is, which has the better glide ratio?

I suppose that would have to do with extended wing tips or not. Mine is a short wing and it stalls right at book speed of 55 KIAS with flaps down. I think the long wing stalls around 50 kts. I wouldn't think the short wing has as good a glide ratio as a 360.

While the glide ratio is very good for a short winged Glasair, the climbout speed at 110 kts helps. If I'm through 500 ft on dept, I have enough speed built up where I can turn back to the field and bleed it off in the turn and be down to 80 kts on final. Anything below 500 ft and I'm going straight ahead.

Another safety advantage most homebuilts have is the go around. Plenty of accidents from people attempting a go around at low altitude in certfied aircraft where they stall or spin it in. I did one in my AA-5 one day during the summer and it was lethargic. The little Glasair is so light, just put the coals to it and you're out of there in a hurry. Couldn't believe the difference. Even with full flaps it just powers right along.
 
This is an area I'm VERY interested in. It would seem that the Glasair would have the edge here. One of my biggest concerns about both designs is the engine out, forced landing off field scenario. From what I've seen, composite construction doesn't hold up all that well when the wings hit the dirt and so the slower the better IMO.

Related to this thinking is, which has the better glide ratio?

This article might scare you a bit: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm

Taxiing takes a bit to get used to with a castering nosewheel and not much forward visibility.
Takeoff is a breeze, use full aileron deflection then set the flaps to match the angle of the aileron.
Landing is where it gets very mushy, we try to keep it at 90kts with full flaps and gear on approach.
Instrument approaches also take some getting used to, the best method we've found is keep the plane clean with about 16" to shoot the approach at 130kts, anything below that the plane really wants to slow down, about 3 miles out you can pull more power out, throw the gear down at 123kts and wait for 100kts to put in all the flaps, this way seems to work a lot better than dragging it in slow and dirty with a bunch of power.
 
This article might scare you a bit: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm

Taxiing takes a bit to get used to with a castering nosewheel and not much forward visibility.
Takeoff is a breeze, use full aileron deflection then set the flaps to match the angle of the aileron.
Landing is where it gets very mushy, we try to keep it at 90kts with full flaps and gear on approach.
Instrument approaches also take some getting used to, the best method we've found is keep the plane clean with about 16" to shoot the approach at 130kts, anything below that the plane really wants to slow down, about 3 miles out you can pull more power out, throw the gear down at 123kts and wait for 100kts to put in all the flaps, this way seems to work a lot better than dragging it in slow and dirty with a bunch of power.

The article sure doesn't inspire confidence in the design and I've heard that the Legacy is a whole other animal, probably a redesign to fix these short comings in what should be a hobby/amateur design, not a challenge for military test pilots. What scares me most is those landing speeds. Are you saying that you shoot to touch down at 90kts, or 103mph? If that is the case, that does not bode well for surviving an off field, forced landing. Has anybody tried vortex generators to try to get the landing speeds down?

The Glasair is looking better and better, but even there I have questions. The long wing Glasair might be the ticket, but even there I'd like to hear real world numbers first.
 
Sometimes I think of a day beyond the Mooney and these airplanes seem to more accurately meet my mission profile and interest. I really don't need the back seat. I really wish I could get a plane like one of these in aluminum, but it is what it is. I'm not changing planes anytime soon, but any thoughts of one over the other? Assume the same engine, prop and avionics.

Not trying to hijack your thread, but given your preference for aluminum, have you considered the various 2-seat Vans aircraft out there?
 
The article sure doesn't inspire confidence in the design and I've heard that the Legacy is a whole other animal, probably a redesign to fix these short comings in what should be a hobby/amateur design, not a challenge for military test pilots. What scares me most is those landing speeds. Are you saying that you shoot to touch down at 90kts, or 103mph? If that is the case, that does not bode well for surviving an off field, forced landing. Has anybody tried vortex generators to try to get the landing speeds down?

The Glasair is looking better and better, but even there I have questions. The long wing Glasair might be the ticket, but even there I'd like to hear real world numbers first.

I know of a few Glasairs that have attachable wingtip extensions for cross country flying, which would be nice to have.

The MK2 tail on the Lancair fixed a little bit of the slow speed handling characteristics. Come across the fence no slower than 90kts, your wheels touch the ground at ~68kts I believe. Try to fly both planes!
 
The article sure doesn't inspire confidence in the design and I've heard that the Legacy is a whole other animal, probably a redesign to fix these short comings in what should be a hobby/amateur design, not a challenge for military test pilots. What scares me most is those landing speeds. Are you saying that you shoot to touch down at 90kts, or 103mph? If that is the case, that does not bode well for surviving an off field, forced landing. Has anybody tried vortex generators to try to get the landing speeds down?

The Glasair is looking better and better, but even there I have questions. The long wing Glasair might be the ticket, but even there I'd like to hear real world numbers first.
That article is discouraging but you cannot believe everything you read. Look at the accident reports of Lancairs and know that a large proportion of them occur with pilots who have low time in type. Consider this article was written due to an accident by a friend of a pilot with, what, 14 hours in type?

Yes, the Lancair has very extremely light stick force and necessary stick travel for the resulting effect in the elevator to produce dramatic change in the vertical, but you get used to that.

Yes, it takes practice to stay ahead of the plane. The Lancair instructor taught me to downwind 120 kts, base turn 110 kts, final turn 100 kts, cross numbers at 90 kts. I have since decreased that to 75-80 kts over the numbers. Stall speed is 55 kts in landing configuration but if you get too slow the sink rate goes up excessively.

Yes, it is easy to get into a PIO as the pilot in the article did. This is likely due to multiple factors. The tires are so small they are sold at tractor supply for lawnmowers (yes, they have what you need out there...). The tire pressure must be kept high - around 45 plus psi or they have a tendency to flex on landing pinching the tube resulting in flats. The landing gear even with the optional shocks has very little travel. The elevator (at least on my small tail) lacks authority to hold the nose off the ground once the mains touch, thus if you do not touchdown very flat and just above stall you are going to bounce. The nose sits high resulting in zero forward visibility over the nose in the flare. This amounts to very unforgiving landing characteristics.

It is a very capable IFR cross country machine contrary to what the author of that article would have you believe. You just need good transition training and practice.

The glide ratio on the Lancair is 13:1 I believe with a best glide speed of 104 kts. I have read the Glasair is much lower glide ratio in the neighborhood of 7:1 I think.

A Glasair is a better machine in some aspects; it just depends on your priorities. If safety in an engine out is your priority then neither is good but the Glasair is most certainly better. This is more so true if you get a Glasair with extended wingtips and slotted flaps. If I were to have complete engine failure at 10,000 agl directly over an airport, I cannot say with certainty I would not either come up short or have an overrun. This is due to the Lancairs lack of slip effectiveness, lack of speed brakes, lack of a bellyboard, small flaps, and high landing speed which consumes runway. While I have been in shorter, I typically use 3000 foot runway as a minimum during the day and 4500 foot at night.

Yes, the legacy fixed a few issues. Larger tires and increased strut travel, taller gear legs affording more level attitude on the ground and better over the nose visibility, larger cabin and of course more power / speed.
 
Last edited:
In regard to the fixed gear for amateurs statement... Oh nice. I take it in gist but that's a silly attitude to take if it's not. I cannot help but notice the lack of mention of the IV or IVP in this thread. Just 235 320 360 Legacy. I found the IV and its variants to be the real selling point due to speed alt climb and mostly useful load. Of course its got a history all ots own.

As to the point on retracts... there are 2 kinds of complex pilots. Those who have landed gear-up, and those who will. I know old saying.

Certainly nothing amateur about the cfi's i've had in both. :)

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
The glide ratio on the Lancair is 13:1 I believe with a best glide speed of 104 kts. I have read the Glasair is much lower glide ratio in the neighborhood of 7:1 I think.

Huh? You think the Glasair IIRG has ~ half the glide ratio as the Lancair? In the same configuration I presume?
 
Huh? You think the Glasair IIRG has ~ half the glide ratio as the Lancair? In the same configuration I presume?

No, I don't think that sounds correct but it is what I recall reading online.
 
In regard to the fixed gear for amateurs statement... Oh nice. I take it in gist but that's a silly attitude to take if it's not. I cannot help but notice the lack of mention of the IV or IVP in this thread. Just 235 320 360 Legacy. I found the IV and its variants to be the real selling point due to speed alt climb and mostly useful load. Of course its got a history all ots own.

As to the point on retracts... there are 2 kinds of complex pilots. Those who have landed gear-up, and those who will. I know old saying.

Certainly nothing amateur about the cfi's i've had in both. :)

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Give insurance a call on a IV-P and you'll see why they're not in the same realm as the 320/360 airplanes..
 
What percentage of IV-Ps have been totaled?

It seems like there is an NTSB report on one of them every time I turn around.

Dan
 
If I were to have complete engine failure at 10,000 agl directly over an airport, I cannot say with certainty I would not either come up short or have an overrun. This is due to the Lancairs lack of slip effectiveness, lack of speed brakes, lack of a bellyboard, small flaps, and high landing speed which consumes runway. While I have been in shorter, I typically use 3000 foot runway as a minimum during the day and 4500 foot at night.

Thank you for the candid reply. It's looking like the 360 is not the plane for me and I will continue to admire them from outside the cockpit. I fly for fun and I'm not willing to reduce my safety margins. Given that I only put in about 60-75 hours a year, the 360 seems like more plane than I could keep proficient in and in any case, I do not put myself in the camp that believes that our motors are "bullet proof" and "almost never fail". On the contrary, I believe they quit quite a bit. Engine out is a real concern to me.

In addition, I semi regularly fly out of runways that are only 2500 ft long. I think I need a bit more short field performance. Not to mention my home field's runway 23 that is only 3000 ft long that I use on a regular basis. When it gets hot around here, I need to consider it much shorter.

I am seriously surprised that Lancair never considered speed brakes, spoilers or some sort of altitude losing device as part of the basic design.
 
As to the point on retracts... there are 2 kinds of complex pilots. Those who have landed gear-up, and those who will. I know old saying.

Funny thing is, same thing can say the same thing about tail wheel pilots, but nobody ever seems to bust their chops. I'm very comfortable with the "complex challenge".:D
 
Not trying to hijack your thread, but given your preference for aluminum, have you considered the various 2-seat Vans aircraft out there?

I am impressed. The POA board got to post 26 before suggesting a Vans. The AOPA board did it in one. Kind of like the Bonanza is the ultimate certified plane you'll end up with anyways, the Vans RVx is the ultimate experimental, so it seems.

I have considered them, and if somebody said I had to build a plane, the RV would be it. Problem is, they don't appeal to me that much. Kind of like the C-182 of the experimental world. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just somehow not my cup of tea.
 
I am impressed. The POA board got to post 26 before suggesting a Vans. The AOPA board did it in one. Kind of like the Bonanza is the ultimate certified plane you'll end up with anyways, the Vans RVx is the ultimate experimental, so it seems.

I have considered them, and if somebody said I had to build a plane, the RV would be it. Problem is, they don't appeal to me that much. Kind of like the C-182 of the experimental world. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just somehow not my cup of tea.

That was my take 20 years ago. But after getting a ride in one, seeing the huge amount of support offered by Van's, other suppliers, and the builder's groups, I came around. They really are sweet flying airplanes with few vices and very benign characteristics. Go bum a ride in one someday and you may change your mind...
 
I am seriously surprised that Lancair never considered speed brakes, spoilers or some sort of altitude losing device as part of the basic design.

I have no lancair time but I will wager there is a huge difference between the airplane at clean best glide with the prop pulled back vs glide ratio with the prop forward, gear and flaps out, and 1.1 vso (dropping like a rock). Understand its not as easy to make a precision landing vs something draggy with a big rudder (cessna) but I can't imagine that with a few hours training you couldn't make decent power off precision landings.
 
I am seriously surprised that Lancair never considered speed brakes, spoilers or some sort of altitude losing device as part of the basic design.

S-turns or an overhead approach are the best way to slow down to land. Come screaming in at 200kts near idle, pull a 2G turn to the downwind and climb about 200 feet you'll be right at gear speed on the perch.
 
Back
Top