I want one of these!!

SkyHog said:
Wow - is that typical?
Click to expand...
Note that the panel shot that has the DVD player is showing an IAS of about 180 kts and, if the setting on the ASI is correct, a TAS of 270. The 350 knot indication is almost certainly in a dive, and as for the GPS readout of groundspeed, well, I'd like to see some other data. However, Lancair does list the "typical" cruise speed at 287 knots, for whatever that's worth.
 
I thought I wanted a Columbia 400. I'll have to reset my dreams....
 
Uh, wow.

I guess if I were willing to fly around semi-reclined with my forehead pressing up against the ceiling, this plane would be first on my list!
 
Professionally Built and Completed in 2000, Winner of the "Bronze Lindy" Award at Oshkosh for Best Workmanship in 2001,
Click to expand...
I'm soooooo proud.
 
The accident rate is very high in the IV-P- the wing stalls around 80 knots and takes at least 10,000 feet to recover (with a test pilot!)

cool airplane (jet) nonetheless.
 
BonanzaDriver said:
the wing stalls around 80 knots and takes at least 10,000 feet to recover
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's quite the story. It is true that it does stall at a higher speed than most people are used to but I would say it's closer to 70 than 80 clean wing and all. 10,000 feet to recover? The one I flew didn't behave like that. We did all the stalls at around 5K here in the Cleveland area. I think we even did the approaches at 90KIAS, but it has been a few years.

As for performance, I remember seeing 295KTAS at FL23 18GPH :hairraise:. We did Cleveland to Daytona in 3hrs 15min.

I can imagine some older guy that had a 182 or 201 that put one of these together would be in way over his head. Now someone that had been flying 310's or Barron's or better wouldn't have any problems. This may be why you see so many for sale. Plus the fact that it takes about 400K to build one.

John
 
Like the Questair Venture, the wing loading is high. That means, when it stalls it unloads in a hurry. Not-a-lotta wing talking to you when it's about to dish it out. It's also short coupled for HP and so will need a lot of attention to pitch (even before airspeed).

Can't be sloppy and it doesn't have a stick shaker.
 
Everything I have heard has been second hand- so I cannot claim firsthand experience.

I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that the accident rate is due to pilot inexperience and/or training. Thinking that the airplane will behave as a cessna 182 is deadly. That being said, I have always steered clear of purchasing the plane due to the high accident rate, but if the airplane is predictable and training was fine, I would be happy with owning one (I fly King air's, a CJ2, and my own bonanza).

Why is it that you see very low time IV-P's for sale though?
 
because when you are going 280 knots you dont build time?
 
BonanzaDriver said:
Why is it that you see very low time IV-P's for sale though?
Click to expand...

I can just imagine an older 182 or the like owner building one of these and it being way over their abilities. Do a little training in one and then decide that they have no biz being in one. I mean, these people have to start a decent 100 miles away. It's a whole different mind set of flying, and they just are not prepared. It would be like flying a single that has the performance of the King Air and CJ, but now you also have a turbo piston motor to manage. Couple that to 90 kts over the fence and it's just too much for Mr. 700 hr VFR pilot coming from a 182, 201, etc..

Notice how I didn't add Bonanzas.........:cheerswine:

John
 
BonanzaDriver said:
Why is it that you see very low time IV-P's for sale though?
Click to expand...

I know a guy who built one and sold it right away. I think he wanted something less expensive to operate. I also suspect that he built the thing hoping to make money on the project (and I think he did).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top