Glassair IIRG vs. Lancair 360

PBristolJr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok... but why didn't they give you speed brakes, or effective flaps or something?
 
Dav8or said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am reading from the OP then that the 320/360 is out. IV-P is out. RVs are out. Then there are a bunch of other homebuilts including STOLs which may meet runway minimums, but not sure how important X-country performance is.

I went through a similar soul searching myself and it came down to a GLAS SIIS (extended wing tips, slotted flaps, Vs0 at 55kts-ish, climbs with the best of them @2500fpm, picks up a decent load for a two seater, is easy on the gas, and cruises at 180kts 65%). Problem is as was inferred is that there is a sparse support community around these planes. On the other hand, the ones who are there are a small community so it is a collection of folks who I have found to be always willing to go the extra mile for a friend in the fraternity. Adding to this, i was told that the new owners at GLAS are putting a GIII carbon fiber through its paces for certification, maybe not in the US immediately which means at the very least we can expect continued support from the factory and hopefully a resurgence of community builders over time.
 
ssonixx said:
I went through a similar soul searching myself and it came down to a GLAS SIIS (extended wing tips, slotted flaps, Vs0 at 55kts-ish, climbs with the best of them @2500fpm, picks up a decent load for a two seater, is easy on the gas, and cruises at 180kts 65%).
Click to expand...

Tell me more! Sounding better. I'm not all that afraid of the limited support, although I of course would prefer robust report like the Vans guys have, but not the first time I've gone with the outlier.

Question is, if you buy a plane with short wings and standard flaps, how hard/expensive is it to convert to the long wing slotted flaps?
 
Dav8or said:
Tell me more! Sounding better. I'm not all that afraid of the limited support, although I of course would prefer robust report like the Vans guys have, but not the first time I've gone with the outlier.

Question is, if you buy a plane with short wings and standard flaps, how hard/expensive is it to convert to the long wing slotted flaps?
Click to expand...

The extended wing tips are a kit. You can buy and add them to a flying aircraft. Cost about $1000 if you want fuel in them. They are then removable and you can go back and forth between the short and long tips. I have both sets for my glasair III.
 
Todd Copeland said:
The extended wing tips are a kit. You can buy and add them to a flying aircraft. Cost about $1000 if you want fuel in them. They are then removable and you can go back and forth between the short and long tips. I have both sets for my glasair III.
Click to expand...

Do they really effect performance significantly? I'm assuming the long tips mean slower stall, longer glide and lower cruise numbers? Did you buy your long tips and do you think it was worth it? In addition to the tips and the slotted flaps ( that I assume you can also add to a completed aircraft) has anyone tried vortex generators to see if they can get the stall even lower without sacrificing cruise speed too much?
 
I don't have much experience with either, but I strongly considered a glasair RG prior to getting the mooney. It's a really good looking plane IMO and pretty quick.
 
Dav8or said:
Do they really effect performance significantly? I'm assuming the long tips mean slower stall, longer glide and lower cruise numbers? Did you buy your long tips and do you think it was worth it? In addition to the tips and the slotted flaps ( that I assume you can also add to a completed aircraft) has anyone tried vortex generators to see if they can get the stall even lower without sacrificing cruise speed too much?
Click to expand...

They do affect performance. In fact, to that point all recommendations for test flying and training in the glasair III are to use the extensions because they tame the aircraft in handling and lower the stall speed by about five knots.
 
Dav8or said:
Do they really effect performance significantly? I'm assuming the long tips mean slower stall, longer glide and lower cruise numbers? Did you buy your long tips and do you think it was worth it? In addition to the tips and the slotted flaps ( that I assume you can also add to a completed aircraft) has anyone tried vortex generators to see if they can get the stall even lower without sacrificing cruise speed too much?
Click to expand...

The jury is out on the slotted flaps though, and they are a big PITA to build. And yes, I bought both the extensions and slotted flaps. The extensions can also add 11 gallons of fuel as well.
 
Todd Copeland said:
They do affect performance. In fact, to that point all recommendations for test flying and training in the glasair III are to use the extensions because they tame the aircraft in handling and lower the stall speed by about five knots.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a worthwhile mod. I just happened to be waiting at the run up at Petaluma (O69) today, and a Glasair of some variety was on approach. It was a pretty gusty wind day with about a 40 degree crosswind, so perhaps he was keeping his speed up to deal with the wind, but man! He was moving when he came over the fence and he used up most of the runway. I have no idea what model he had, but I shudder to think of that same approach landing in a farmer's field, or on open water somewhere.

The Mooney used half or less of the runway he did. I kind of doubt this guy had the wing extensions from the look of it, but I'm no expert on Glasairs.
 
Dav8or said:
Sounds like a worthwhile mod. I just happened to be waiting at the run up at Petaluma (O69) today, and a Glasair of some variety was on approach. It was a pretty gusty wind day with about a 40 degree crosswind, so perhaps he was keeping his speed up to deal with the wind, but man! He was moving when he came over the fence and he used up most of the runway. I have no idea what model he had, but I shudder to think of that same approach landing in a farmer's field, or on open water somewhere.

The Mooney used half or less of the runway he did. I kind of doubt this guy had the wing extensions from the look of it, but I'm no expert on Glasairs.
Click to expand...

Glasairs are fast on approach. Glasair 3's fly approaches at 100 knots. Yes, engine out scenarios kind of suck, best glide 140 with touch down aboutn120. I struggled thinking about this for some time, but there are lots of airplanes that. Come down fast. Think about all the wwII warbirds people fly. In fact, the wing loading on the glasair without the tip extensions is almost exactly the same as a P-51. The result is similar performance and it is as much fun as it looks. I also rationalize the engine out in my mind with the knowledge that the vast majority of engine failures are preventable. Pilot error is still by far the most likely cause for that prop to stop spinning. I work diligently to ensure it keeps turning!
 
Todd Copeland said:
Glasairs are fast on approach. Glasair 3's fly approaches at 100 knots. Yes, engine out scenarios kind of suck, best glide 140 with touch down aboutn120.
Click to expand...

Kind of sucks? That totally sucks. Touchdown at 120? Off field that's impact at 120. I'm not that brave. Maybe there is something to these spam cans after all.:(
 
Dav8or said:
Kind of sucks? That totally sucks. Touchdown at 120? Off field that's impact at 120. I'm not that brave. Maybe there is something to these spam cans after all.:(
Click to expand...

NFW off airport full flap touch down would be at 120, the stall speed on the Glasair III is like 67kts.
 
I believe the 120 and 140 numbers are mph on a Glasair 3 but yes, I too would question a 120 touchdown. Either way, off airport is not where I want to find myself in one of these. I believe my first inclination would be to look for a straight road with little to no traffic. There is a price to pay for the fast wing.
 
Todd Copeland said:
The jury is out on the slotted flaps though, and they are a big PITA to build. And yes, I bought both the extensions and slotted flaps. The extensions can also add 11 gallons of fuel as well.
Click to expand...

Heck, if you have the ass and bladder to use it the extra range provided by the 11gallons of fuel probably negates any loss in cruise speed on longer trips. You have to go a LOT faster to make up for an extra fuel stop!
 
Todd Copeland said:
Glasairs are fast on approach. Glasair 3's fly approaches at 100 knots. Yes, engine out scenarios kind of suck, best glide 140 with touch down aboutn120.
Click to expand...

Is that 100 knots for an ILS approach? I can't imagine you cross the fence at 100 knots.
 
PBristolJr said:
NFW off airport full flap touch down would be at 120, the stall speed on the Glasair III is like 67kts.
Click to expand...

Stall speed with slotted flaps and wing extensions is more like 80 knots. However, without power your sink rate is in excess of 3000 FPM. As soon as you drop gear or flaps its closer to 4000 FPM. Thus 140 knots to 120knots before touchdown so you can arrest the sink rate.
There are lots of aircraft with this type of characteristics, just not in G.A. I think it's worth the small risk of loosing power to fly this kind of aircraft.
 
Those speeds sound worse than a IV-P...!
 
I have about 400 hours in my Lancair 360 now and have flown it in a wide variety of flight conditions. It's incredibly versatile. You can enter the pattern at 120-180kts and get the job done. It's predictable and gives you a wide range of choices.

As for the power off handling, I have done maybe 15 power off landings in the pattern and maybe 3 of them from 3000ft AGL. No need to slip...just use the prop. When you need to lose energy, push the prop forward. Need to glide like crazy? Prop all the way back.

I operate at N07, a field with a 2100x40 rwy when rwy 1 is in use (800 displaced threshold). I've landed it at Andover (1920ft) several times. I also operate it at N07 at night.

Speed on final is 80kts at typical weight, smooth conditions, touchdown just about 60kias (based on watching videos back).

Toughest part is energy management. Gear extension speed is 120kts, but cruise is around 170kias. So, if you're high and fast, you can't drop the gear to get some help. You have to power back, level off, let it get above glideslope (knowing you can catch up later), get to 120kias, gear....approach flap....then 100kts for max flap extension. Congratulations, you're now gliding like a grand piano. I see 2000+ fpm descent at 90kias at idle with prop forward and everything hanging out.

That is a very steep descent gradient that will fix all but the worst of approaches. It's steeper than a 172 can muster, if memory serves.

Visibility is amazing. That's the thing about the Glasair I didn't like...the center pillar.

Here's a compilation of the landings I captured on video during the first 6-9 months of operating the aircraft. Sorry about the horrible windshield in the first few, took a while for it to dawn on me that it was my job to clean it :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq-YtaIzL38

First few landings have the original ASI, which was in mph and only had a few markings. It was horrible.
 
Last edited:
Todd Copeland said:
Then more than likely you are reading book number on the lancair. Ask the people who have flown them.
Click to expand...

The IV-P was my dream, "semi-affordable" aircraft, but to be honest, the large number of fatal NTSB reports scare me away. I'm sure all of them thought they were good pilots too.
 
dans2992 said:
The IV-P was my dream, "semi-affordable" aircraft, but to be honest, the large number of fatal NTSB reports scare me away. I'm sure all of them thought they were good pilots too.
Click to expand...

I hear you loud and clear. It has given me pause as well. In the end, the glasair III is what I dream about and love to fly. A P-51 is dangerous too. Try a Lear jet with an engine failure. No free lunch, if you want the performance, you have trade offs. I'm willing to live with that risk. I know plenty who have many hundreds, some even in the multi-thousand hours in glasair III's. Build them and maintain them well and don't do stupid things in them and they are quite safe. Given that, if your luck runs out, it runs out.
 
Todd Copeland said:
I hear you loud and clear. It has given me pause as well. In the end, the glasair III is what I dream about and love to fly. A P-51 is dangerous too. Try a Lear jet with an engine failure. No free lunch, if you want the performance, you have trade offs. I'm willing to live with that risk. I know plenty who have many hundreds, some even in the multi-thousand hours in glasair III's. Build them and maintain them well and don't do stupid things in them and they are quite safe. Given that, if your luck runs out, it runs out.
Click to expand...

Yep, I know what you're saying. A good many of the IV-P accidents seem to be engine failures though.
 
dans2992 said:
Yep, I know what you're saying. A good many of the IV-P accidents seem to be engine failures though.
Click to expand...

Do some more research, outright engine failures are RARE. Usually they are caused by pilot error or maintenance error. It can happen in any airplane, just a little more criticle if it does happen in a high performance aircraft. It can be handled though, I know of one instance in a lancair VI where the engine failed, sprayed oil all over the windshield and the pilot landed on a beach with virtually no damage to the aircraft. It was unfortunate that a man on the beach was hit by the plane and killed but this was a very skillfully job by the pilot. I guess my point is that these aircraft aren't more prone to problems, just more consequential when something bad does happen. Is that a reason not to fly one? For some pilots it is. For me, it's just a good reason to do better maintenance and be even more diligent about avoiding stupid pilot errors.
 
Best glide in the Lancair is typically 100kts and in the clean configuration, the glide ratio is better than a 172. I have done engine outs from 3000ft and it's largely a non-event.

Leave the flaps clean and gear up until landing assured. There's also tremendous flexibility with the prop. If you aim for mid point of the runway, then gear and flaps towards the end, it still glides relatively well until you put the prop full forward, then it's a brick.
 
Dav8or said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thats funny cause I don't like the 4 bangers. Fuel wise its about draw. IO-360 lyc can burn about the same as IO-470 in cruise.

I prefer the buttery soft smoothness of the 6 over the 4.
 
Todd Copeland said:
Do some more research, outright engine failures are RARE. Usually they are caused by pilot error or maintenance error. It can happen in any airplane, just a little more criticle if it does happen in a high performance aircraft. It can be handled though, I know of one instance in a lancair VI where the engine failed, sprayed oil all over the windshield and the pilot landed on a beach with virtually no damage to the aircraft. It was unfortunate that a man on the beach was hit by the plane and killed but this was a very skillfully job by the pilot. I guess my point is that these aircraft aren't more prone to problems, just more consequential when something bad does happen. Is that a reason not to fly one? For some pilots it is. For me, it's just a good reason to do better maintenance and be even more diligent about avoiding stupid pilot errors.
Click to expand...


Don't get fully sucked into that mental trap. I know two pilots personally who've had engine outs, one at night, with no bad maintenance and no pilot error. I bet numerous folks here can say the same.

Keep those emergency skills up. Both landed successfully with no damage, the night one, on a runway.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
FORANE said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with FORANE. I have not tried or needed to slip the Lancair. Power reduction makes it go down fine enough and proper airspeed control is a must. I have owned and flown a Glasair 1RG (small rudder, extended wings) and Lancair 360 MKII (big tail)currently. I have no experience or insight with the Glasair III or the Lancair 4/4P. The 1RG and 360 are small inside and not suitable for much over 200pounds and 6'0". Both are a delight to fly and I would give the nod to the Lancair for flight controls. The Glasair has a pitch trim system using springs that adversely effects stick feel. The Lancair uses a trim tab. At lower airspeeds, approaching the stall the Lancair controls become very soft and I find that softness a great early indicator of impending stall and low speed/high sink rate. Both are pitch sensitive. Both planes do not have a force buildup with increased speed or control deflection that is common to production planes. The Glasair is nicer to taxi because it has better visibility over the nose and the Glasair II is (I think) wider. I think they both look fantastic. My Glasair was heavier and slower by 20 knots. I don't confuse heavier with stronger. I think the Glasair stalled at a slightly lower speed. Both of these aircraft need a paved runway. Both kits are long out of production but there are some great used choices. While I am not a great fan of header tanks, (because panel service is hard) headers are likely to be in each. Headers also let you exhaust wing fuel with confidence that there is reserve fuel. This increases range, not just by the net increase in gallons but also because of the absolute certainty of visual fuel in the site glass. If range is your thing, get one with a header. If you want a 4cylinder, high speed, usually well equipped rig, the Lancair 320/360 or Glasair 1RG/II are excellent choices and the prices are very reasonable. GII and 360s cost more. I would not fret over the small rudder Glasairs or the small tail Lancairs. My Glasair was a small rudder and other than running out on big cross winds or high power, high angle of attack operations, it was just fine. My small tail Lancair 320 friends say it works fine, just keep your wits about you.

If you want better short field, non paved field, aluminum construction, a HUGE builder/pilot network and you are willing to give up (some) speed, the RV is your better choice. RV has a lower stall speed and is safer for it. What the "square" wing takes in speed, it gives in construction ease and lower stall speed. My RV friends (I flew a RV4 15 years ago one time) tell me the stick feel is sublime. I think Van's uses the term "balanced performance".

All aircraft design is a compromise. Your choice depends upon what corner of the performance envelope you want to occupy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top