Is a lancair IV safe for ex military pilot

[Ted]

The OP asked about a Lancair IV (which I've flown in) but many of the replies are about the IV-P. Do the two have very similar flight characteristics?

I'd expect them to. The primary difference is the pressure vessel, and that the non-P variants I think typically have lower horsepower engines.

 

[steingar]

Firefighters, cops, divers, sailors, bush pilots, Ag pilots..... there's a lot of folks who lose people on the job.

And all listed above are considered dangerous professions, but not anywhere near as dangerous as fighter pilot. Fighter aircraft are dangerous, far more so than the spam cans we all fly around. A fighter pilot is definitely more qualified to fly a hot experimental than I, but it is still a dangerous proposition. most of the guys who've augured those things in are high time pilots.

 

[35 AoA]

To the OP, just keep in mind that GA prop aircraft are demanding in other ways. If you have GA flying time, then I'm sure you are aware of this, but I would personally be more concerned with my end of the equation than the aircraft falling apart on me. Last time I flew a GA prop, it was my old man's Bonanza, and in spite of being a Hornet pilot by trade, I still managed to bounce his poor airplane 1/3 of the way down the runway just simply due to rusty prop stick and rudder skills. He just turned to me and said "stick to your fancy jets kid" and laughed (dad is an old retired P2V & EC-121/lifetime prop guy)

 

[MitchB]

Have no issues with that on a runway.. I take issue with the "hot" approach if you are an unlucky SOB and have no where else to make a hot approach other than the trees!

So if the Lancair lands in the trees at, say 100 kts approach speed - it's dangerous...

However in your Cessna 172, you go into the trees at 65 kts - and you hop out and head down the the pub?

Drive your car into a tree at 74.9 MPH (65 Kts). Does the thought provide some perspective?

The unlucky SOB who loses an engine in any airplane that has to land in the trees is likely on the way to his maker. The safety factor is a product of putting yourself in a position where an engine failure puts you in the trees - not the airplane you're flying.

My 2 cents.

 

[MitchB]

And all listed above are considered dangerous professions, but not anywhere near as dangerous as fighter pilot. Fighter aircraft are dangerous, far more so than the spam cans we all fly around. A fighter pilot is definitely more qualified to fly a hot experimental than I, but it is still a dangerous proposition. most of the guys who've augured those things in are high time pilots.

"... Fighter aircraft are dangerous, far more so than the spam cans we all fly around..."

That is just silly.
Fighter aircraft are NOT dangerous. They are FAR safer than GA aircraft. They have significant backup systems, robust ruggedization, and are designed for survival of both A/C and pilot. Like any other airplane, you have to be trained to fly it.

It is the FLYING that the fighters do that is more dangerous.

The Military does an intense investigation every time a MIL A/C goes down (I worked as a Safety guy in one of my Squadrons). I can absolutely guarantee you that no investigation has ever determined the aircraft crashed because "it was a dangerous airplane to be flying". Human factors, error, or external factors are the causal factors.

These discussions about the Lancair... Look, if it doesn't carry ice - don't fly into it. If it lands fast - then land fast! If it doesn't stall easily - keep your speed above stall.
So, it doesn't carry ice - apparently that's no secret. Do you fly into ice, then say - as you're falling out of the sky - this airplane sucks..?

If your pilot skills are such that holding narrower flight parameters (Airspeed +/-5 kts on approach, touchdown in the first 300 ft, whatever...) is beyond your scope - then get some more experience before jumping into something finicky to fly.

Some airplanes are just more forgiving than others. Some are more demanding to fly. It is the pilot's duty to know his skill level and fly an airplane w/in those parameters.
It is not the duty of the airplane to fly according the pilot's skill.

 

[wabower]

I think those of us who follow GA accidents are more concerned that the Lanceairs seem to fall into the "all of the above" category insofar as accident cause is concerned, and the actual nitty-gritty causes are difficult to analyze. The crash of the turbine last month with the builder and one of the most-respected instructors aboard is a good example of the insidious nature of the crashes.

I have flown some fairly hot and squirrely little airplanes along the way, and would like think that I can handle the idiosyncratic elements of the Lanceairs. OTOH, the "out of left field" surprise element that seems to accompany the type is such that I'm not sure anybody can handle it for long. As a result, I'm not a prospect but I wish you luck.

"... Fighter aircraft are dangerous, far more so than the spam cans we all fly around..."

That is just silly.
Fighter aircraft are NOT dangerous. They are FAR safer than GA aircraft. They have significant backup systems, robust ruggedization, and are designed for survival of both A/C and pilot. Like any other airplane, you have to be trained to fly it.

It is the FLYING that the fighters do that is more dangerous.

The Military does an intense investigation every time a MIL A/C goes down (I worked as a Safety guy in one of my Squadrons). I can absolutely guarantee you that no investigation has ever determined the aircraft crashed because "it was a dangerous airplane to be flying". Human factors, error, or external factors are the causal factors.

These discussions about the Lancair... Look, if it doesn't carry ice - don't fly into it. If it lands fast - then land fast! If it doesn't stall easily - keep your speed above stall.
So, it doesn't carry ice - apparently that's no secret. Do you fly into ice, then say - as you're falling out of the sky - this airplane sucks..?

If your pilot skills are such that holding narrower flight parameters (Airspeed +/-5 kts on approach, touchdown in the first 300 ft, whatever...) is beyond your scope - then get some more experience before jumping into something finicky to fly.

Some airplanes are just more forgiving than others. Some are more demanding to fly. It is the pilot's duty to know his skill level and fly an airplane w/in those parameters.
It is not the duty of the airplane to fly according the pilot's skill.

 

[ebetancourt]

One so far unmentioned problem with the Lancair series, unless something has changed, is that there are no provisions for discharging static electricity. IFR anytime there is convective activity around would be "not recommended" in my book.

 

[bbchien]

"What is this thing you call 'safe'?"

 

[SCCutler]

"What is this thing you call 'safe'?"

It is that mythical ideal, the one we strive for and approach asymptotically... if we are lucky!

 

[rainsux]

> The Aztec can carry enough ice to restore the polar ice caps.
> The IV-P can't carry enough ice to chill a Crown and Coke.

The above is worthy of a T-shirt.

 

[Ted]

> The Aztec can carry enough ice to restore the polar ice caps.
> The IV-P can't carry enough ice to chill a Crown and Coke.

The above is worthy of a T-shirt.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

 

[Henning]

So if the Lancair lands in the trees at, say 100 kts approach speed - it's dangerous...

However in your Cessna 172, you go into the trees at 65 kts - and you hop out and head down the the pub?

Funny you say that, I got sent to get a 172 out of the trees once. The people who were in it got out and climbed down the tree and did just that, and it was an older couple lol. I got there the next day and met up with them, not a scratch on them except their hands from climbing down.

 

[gismo]

Funny you say that, I got sent to get a 172 out of the trees once. The people who were in it got out and climbed down the tree and did just that, and it was an older couple lol. I got there the next day and met up with them, not a scratch on them except their hands from climbing down.

70 Kt into the relatively soft upper branches is a whole lot less injurious than the same speed into the large trunk near the ground. Of course there's no guarantee that your plane will stay in the tree and if it falls straight down to the ground from the top of a 100 ft tree without encountering any significant drag from the branches you probably won't be walking away.

 

[dell30rb]

70 Kt into the relatively soft upper branches is a whole lot less injurious than the same speed into the large trunk near the ground. Of course there's no guarantee that your plane will stay in the tree and if it falls straight down to the ground from the top of a 100 ft tree without encountering any significant drag from the branches you probably won't be walking away.

And in a 172 i'd be going in with full flaps and the stall horn squeaking... That is a lot less than 70kts.

The relationship between velocity and kinetic energy (potential to kill you in a crash) is NOT linear. I would guess that an airplane traveling 100kts VS 70 kts is carrying nearly double the kinetic energy

 

[tiger]

Yep, more than double - kinetic energy is related to the square of the velocity.

 

[bbchien]

Funny you say that, I got sent to get a 172 out of the trees once. The people who were in it got out and climbed down the tree and did just that, and it was an older couple lol. I got there the next day and met up with them, not a scratch on them except their hands from climbing down.

We had one here, the scion of a local restauranteuring family. He bought 3 (THREE) gallons of avgas at the home base, and put it into a tree about 500 yards short of the family strip, in a tree. It was in perfect condition about 40 feet off the ground; he climbed down.

The fire department cut the tree down. The airplane was a total loss.

Pilots are really, really cheap guys.

 

[Bill]

The fire department cut the tree down. The airplane was a total loss.

Pilots are really, really cheap guys.

Gas is cheap, gas is options, gas is life.

 

[Henning]

70 Kt into the relatively soft upper branches is a whole lot less injurious than the same speed into the large trunk near the ground. Of course there's no guarantee that your plane will stay in the tree and if it falls straight down to the ground from the top of a 100 ft tree without encountering any significant drag from the branches you probably won't be walking away.

I do believe we have a gentleman on this board who took out a tree with a 172 and went to ground in it. I'm pretty sure he's flying the same plane today.

If it's not your time, it's not your time.

 

[wabower]

Unless you crash a Cirrus.

Gas is cheap, gas is options, gas is life.

 

[comanchepilot]

well, Bruce - he is Air Force so maybe he should stick with standard airworthiness certificate airplanes - they do much better with standard stuff. ..

 

[Ted]

Unless you crash a Cirrus.

You mean the parachute won't save me?

 

[peppy]

When I was looking to buy I was in love with the IV. I asked an insurance agent if they insured kit planes. He said they did except for two. I forget the other but the IV was one. He then made sure I understood that he would write coverage on other Lancair planes but not the IV. The Evolution that replaced it has much better characteristics. Gosh they look great though and are FAST! I decided it was way too much plane for me.

 

[gismo]

When I was looking to buy I was in love with the IV. I asked an insurance agent if they insured kit planes. He said they did except for two. I forget the other but the IV was one. He then made sure I understood that he would write coverage on other Lancair planes but not the IV. The Evolution that replaced it has much better characteristics. Gosh they look great though and are FAST! I decided it was way too much plane for me.

I'll bet the other one was a Velocity. I had one good friend kill himself in one (significant pilot error, ran out of fuel in night IMC) and another got killed by one that got away from it's pilot (my friend was on the ground). But I remember the first friend complaining that insurance was pretty much impossible to get even back in the '90s.

 

[wabower]

The one with the egg-shaped fuselage was also difficult-bordering-on-impossible to insure. I think they have all crashed by now.

I'll bet the other one was a Velocity. I had one good friend kill himself in one (significant pilot error, ran out of fuel in night IMC) and another got killed by one that got away from it's pilot (my friend was on the ground). But I remember the first friend complaining that insurance was pretty much impossible to get even back in the '90s.

 

[bbchien]

The one with the egg-shaped fuselage was also difficult-bordering-on-impossible to insure. I think they have all crashed by now.

That was Jim Griswold/s "venture". An adVenture it was.

 

[Henning]

Anybody remember the 'Pollywagon'? That flew like hell.

 

[jasont]

My brother wants a IV-P. I keep telling him nothings a free lunch.

 

[Ted]

When I was looking to buy I was in love with the IV. I asked an insurance agent if they insured kit planes. He said they did except for two. I forget the other but the IV was one. He then made sure I understood that he would write coverage on other Lancair planes but not the IV. The Evolution that replaced it has much better characteristics. Gosh they look great though and are FAST! I decided it was way too much plane for me.

As I understand it, the Evolution was designed to be an airplane that could be certified. As such, the flight characteristics are significantly tamer than what you'd expect from something like the IV-P, which was strictly designed to be fast.

 

[wanttaja]

Since 1995 to date I found that over 70 Lancair IV's have crashed. This is horrible and if you read all the details you will soon learn that anyone who
thinks this is a good plane is joking themselves. The new Pipistrel Panthera has a video on youtube where they do a 10 rotation spin and recover. You can't even safely stall a lancair. IMO they should ground all the IV's. With that being said I understand the new Evolutions have a complete new wing and landing gear. So I won't include these new planes. I have not seen where one of the new ones have crashed. I think all homebuilts should have to go through stall and spin recovery. We had a lot of trouble with rockwell 112A if you did not immediately recover a spin. I went on and read all 70 plus accident briefs and I would rather **** on a lancair IV than get in one

I've read most of the Lancair IV accident reports, as well as the accident reports for another ~4200 homebuilt accidents. I compute what I call the "Fleet Accident Rate" for many common homebuilt aircraft. I take the average number of accidents over the 1998-2017 period (twenty years) and compare it to the number of aircraft registered as of December 2017.

Certainly the Lancair IV has a high fleet accident rate. But it's not the highest. Avid Flyers have a higher rate, as do KR-2s. The "winner" is a small ultralight-like homebuilt with a rate 33% higher than the Lancair IV.

Unlike the Panthera, unlike the Avid, unlike the KR-2, the Lancair IV is a high performance aircraft. Compromises are necessary to achieve those levels of performance. The Lancair IV has a performance envelope very similar to some early WWII fighters, such as the Curtiss P-40. These aircraft also had high accident rates.

The GlaStar has half the accident rate of the Lancair IV... but the Lancair flies twice as fast. Ya pays ya money, and ya take ya chances....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Salty]

I'm always reading about how this plane or that plane can't be recovered from a spin, but honestly if you spin by accident you've already lost the battle, and probably the war in any plane.

I'd love to see statistics on how many inadvertent stalls/spins were successfully recovered. I can't imagine the number is very high. But, since nobody reports a non-crash we'll never know.

 

[Tantalum]

if you spin by accident you've already lost the battle

..this is the part that gets me.. it's like judging how good a boat is by easy is it to refloat after you've sunk it. Stay ahead of the plane, know how to recognize the onset of a stall and react, and don't get sloppy

Unless a plane has actual structural or engineering issues I have a hard time indicting an aircraft because it demands more vigilance from its operator. On the flip side, I think the biggest fault of our training environment is people learn on a 172, which are about as docile as you can get.. to the point where people are scared of Tiger because they "can be squirrely" .. what?!

 

[Tarheelpilot]

..this is the part that gets me.. it's like judging how good a boat is by easy is it to refloat after you've sunk it. Stay ahead of the plane, know how to recognize the onset of a stall and react, and don't get sloppy

Unless a plane has actual structural or engineering issues I have a hard time indicting an aircraft because it demands more vigilance from its operator. On the flip side, I think the biggest fault of our training environment is people learn on a 172, which are about as docile as you can get.. to the point where people are scared of Tiger because they "can be squirrely" .. what?!

I put more responsibility on the instructor and the pilot than the aircraft. I learned in a 172 and have enjoyed a wonderful career flying that I hope is not yet halfway done.

 

[DaleB]

@wanttaja - I gotta wonder how those accident numbers have fared between June of 2012 and now.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

@wanttaja - I gotta wonder how those accident numbers have fared between June of 2012 and now.

Rates are probably better because all of them have been crashed.

 

[Adam Weiss]

One so far unmentioned problem with the Lancair series, unless something has changed, is that there are no provisions for discharging static electricity. IFR anytime there is convective activity around would be "not recommended" in my book.

Not being a jerk...just genuinely curious.
How can any aircraft discharge static electricity without a ground?
If I'm flying my metal RV through convective activity and pick up some charge, while airborne, it has nowhere to go.
Even when I land, my tires would be a good insulator.
Again, not challenging, just trying to learn.

 

[wanttaja]

@wanttaja - I gotta wonder how those accident numbers have fared between June of 2012 and now.

Not getting what you're looking at, but.....

If you're referring to the FAA Registration effort, my method of computing the average fleet accident rate accommodates that. In any case, here are the number of EAB Lancair IVs on the registry from 2008-2018.

Note that from 2010-2013, the FAA had instituted the first cycle of its re-registration program. Most homebuilts show a decrease in fleet size during this period.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Velocity173]

Not being a jerk...just genuinely curious.
How can any aircraft discharge static electricity without a ground?
If I'm flying my metal RV through convective activity and pick up some charge, while airborne, it has nowhere to go.
Even when I land, my tires would be a good insulator.
Again, not challenging, just trying to learn.

Through bonding strips that are connected to static discharge wicks.

 

[donjohnston]

One so far unmentioned problem with the Lancair series, unless something has changed, is that there are no provisions for discharging static electricity. IFR anytime there is convective activity around would be "not recommended" in my book.

Static electricity near convective activity is an incredibly minor concern... Compared to a lightning strike. Because a lightning strike on a composite without a mesh overlay will ruin your day.

I stay far, Far, FAR away from anything that looks like it could generate lightning.

 

[DaleB]

Not getting what you're looking at, but.....
View attachment 90328
If you're referring to the FAA Registration effort, my method of computing the average fleet accident rate accommodates that. In any case, here are the number of EAB Lancair IVs on the registry from 2008-2018.

No... I was referring to the date of the last post in this thread before yours today. June 21, 2012. Hence the smiley.

 

[jimhorner]

Not being a jerk...just genuinely curious.
How can any aircraft discharge static electricity without a ground?
If I'm flying my metal RV through convective activity and pick up some charge, while airborne, it has nowhere to go.
Even when I land, my tires would be a good insulator.
Again, not challenging, just trying to learn.

Electrons can move even if there isn’t a metallic connection to ground. Think lightning. Maxwell’s equations and dielectric breakdown and all that good stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_breakdown

Static discharge wicks. Static electricity tends to discharge from sharp pointed surfaces. Without wicks there would be discharges from things like antennae and trailing edges. These wicks tend to provide a path for controlled discharge without causing issues with larger discharges from antennae.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_discharger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro