Is a lancair IV safe for ex military pilot

[ebetancourt]

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.

you are correct, didn’t write that well. The best, and somewhat humorous example because no one was hurt, was the Diamond glider in the UK several years ago. After lightning struck the two pilots found themselves in seats no longer surrounded by a glider; fortunately they were both wearing parachutes.

A metal airplane with static wicks can survive a lightning strike quite well. Many years ago I had one in a C141 and maintenance couldn’t find any sign of it.

 

[Geosync]

Wow, zombie thread. To address the initial question from 8 years ago, from a claims prospective, the military to civvi piston claims I see are piston engine issues, like over priming when hot, causing fires, on tail draggers it’s flipping it right on over on landing when they slam on the brakes(Navy), propstrikes during run up, adding to much power with the brakes on(AF guys for some reason). Airframe wise, nothing mil guys can’t handle.

 

[Salty]

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

If they couldn’t static wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.

 

[kayoh190]

Wow, zombie thread.

Yeah, what happens is a spammer or bot digs up the thread. Usually we can zap it before anyone else responds, but if a legit poster comes in after the bot, there’s not much we can do.

 

[Ravioli]

This is an actually interesting necrothread. Gave us a chance to see Ron's updated chart!

I think I'll search and touch @wanttaja's other thread where he shows his data so we can get the rest of the E-AB stats.

<-- that guy is interested in E-AB, don't ya know

 

[Ted]

I've always loved Lancairs. Safety? Well they're high performance efficient aircraft that you're best off not stalling. When Bill Harrelson took me for a ride in his 320 at Wings... I guess over 12 years ago now, he did a stall and wasn't at all concerned about it. Yes it was abrupt, but very manageable for a competent pilot (which he very much is). The IV is a different beast entirely in that regard, and is best off not stalled.

But the same can be said about the MU-2. The real difference is the IV is mostly piston powered, so you have the reliability of a piston with the forgiving stall characteristics of a Lear or an MU-2.

Fly it well and it's still perhaps of questionable safety, which is why they're hard (maybe impossible?) to insure in this market. But I'd still love one, just doesn't fit my mission.

 

[Dana]

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.

Yes, but what about the fatal accident rate. A light taildragger like an Avid would have a higher incidence of things like ground loops, etc., but those things usually aren't fatal.

 

[steingar]

It's an airliner, flying at airliner speeds and airliner altitudes. Built and flown by amateurs. Tell me that's safe. Try.
Maybe if the pilots who fly them train like professionals, then maybe it's safe. The guy I know who's building one doesn't even have an instrument rating, and he's almost done. They have an appalling safely record, and it's easy to see why.

 

[Salty]

It's an airliner, flying at airliner speeds and airliner altitudes. Built and flown by amateurs. Tell me that's safe. Try.
Maybe if the pilots who fly them train like professionals, then maybe it's safe. The guy I know who's building one doesn't even have an instrument rating, and he's almost done. They have an appalling safely record, and it's easy to see why.

It’s a 50 year old airplane, flying over houses at 1,000 feet. Owned and flown by an amateur. Tell me that’s safe. Try.

 

[steingar]

It’s a 50 year old airplane, flying over houses at 1,000 feet. Owned and flown by an amateur. Tell me that’s safe. Try.

If the pilot is current and conscientious he or she won't be flying over houses at 1,000 feet. A 50 year old airplane can be far safer than a new one. Engines more often break catastrophically from infant mortality than an approach to TBO. And a brand now airplane can have manufacturing defects that would have been corrected in the older airframe. New aircraft can have design defects that haven't yet turned into ADs. Old doesn't automatically mean unsafe. If airplanes are properly cared for they last until they run out of spare parts.

 

[wanttaja]

Yes, but what about the fatal accident rate. A light taildragger like an Avid would have a higher incidence of things like ground loops, etc., but those things usually aren't fatal.

Oh, certainly, the Lancair IV has the highest fatality rate (percentage of accidents that result in a fatality) of all the homebuilts I looked at...and the Avid the lowest!

But that doesn't mean there's a design deficiency in the Lancair. In my opinion, it's again just a reflection of the performance envelope. A plane capable of flying faster is likely to hit the ground at a higher speed. And, of course, the energy liberated is in proportion to the square of the speed.

Here's a plot I generated last year, which compares the fatality rate for various homebuilts with their published cruise speed. I certainly realize that the planes are NOT likely to actually impact at cruise...but cruise speed is a useful parameter to reflect the planes' normal operating speeds.

You see the same effect in production airplanes....the faster the airplane, the higher the fatal accident rate.

The other factor is the design of the aircraft itself. Occupant protection, other than with belts, is mostly non-existent in homebuilts. High-wing planes generally have a lower fatality rate...but of course, most of the slow-speed airplanes are high wingers! High-wing planes do put more structure around the occupant's heads, so I believe there is more protection.

So, yes, the Lancair IV has a high fatal accident rate...but it's because they hit the ground harder.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Salty]

If the pilot is current and conscientious he or she won't be flying over houses at 1,000 feet. A 50 year old airplane can be far safer than a new one. Engines more often break catastrophically from infant mortality than an approach to TBO. And a brand now airplane can have manufacturing defects that would have been corrected in the older airframe. New aircraft can have design defects that haven't yet turned into ADs. Old doesn't automatically mean unsafe. If airplanes are properly cared for they last until they run out of spare parts.

Please teach us how to land while staying above 1000 feet.

 

[Salty]

If the pilot is current and conscientious he or she won't be flying over houses at 1,000 feet. A 50 year old airplane can be far safer than a new one. Engines more often break catastrophically from infant mortality than an approach to TBO. And a brand now airplane can have manufacturing defects that would have been corrected in the older airframe. New aircraft can have design defects that haven't yet turned into ADs. Old doesn't automatically mean unsafe. If airplanes are properly cared for they last until they run out of spare parts.

As usual the point went over your head. Many people feel what I said is true. You disagree. The same is true about your statement. I suggest you don’t fly one. Leave it to those more capable.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I wasn't around for the full history of events, but my understanding is that on or about the mid-2000's, some Lancair folks noticed the accident rate and decided to do something, so they formed LOBO (Lancair Owners and Builders Organization), formulated a training syllabus, produced a list of Lancair instructors; provided regularly-updated safety and maintenance related documents on the website and at meetings; and have continually encouraged initial training for new owners and follow up recurrent training.

Here is a graph of the current Lancair fatal accident rate with a black arrow showing when this training all got well underway.

One thing I have noticed in the group is that there is significant number of...mmm non-compliant people who absolutely refuse to have anything to do with training - it seems to offend their sense of freedom. Not only that but some of these pilots insist on performing aviation activities in this model which are on the edge (hotdogging stunts).
So we are going to continue to see accidents which cannot be blamed on the aircraft.

 

[wanttaja]

One thing I have noticed in the group is that there is significant number of...mmm non-compliant people who absolutely refuse to have anything to do with training - it seems to offend their sense of freedom. Not only that but some of these pilots insist on performing aviation activities in this model which are on the edge (hotdogging stunts).
So we are going to continue to see accidents which cannot be blamed on the aircraft.

Had an interesting talk with a guy from LOBO (Lancair Owners and Buyer's Organization) a few years back. He said pilots who had taken LOBO safety training rarely were involved in accidents.

The interesting factor is that this is not necessarily due to the training itself...but someone who TAKES the training is already showing a safety-oriented attitude. They're already less likely to take the chances that get some pilots into trouble.

I read my favorite safety-related story in an Air Force safety magazine back when I was on active duty. The safety officer on an Air Force base examined the record, and found the base had *never* had an aircraft accident on a Thursday.

He looked into it, and realized that the base Crash/Rescue team had an exercise every Thursday morning. The safety guy figured the plume of smoke from the exercise rising into the air as people went to work that day made them more mindful of safety...at least temporarily.

They started randomizing the day of the week the exercise occurred, and the "magic Thursday" went away. Accident rate remained the same, too.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Ravioli]

I want to publicly thank @wanttaja for continuing to share his safety data. So I will:

Thanks Ron!

 

[35 AoA]

Wow, zombie thread. To address the initial question from 8 years ago, from a claims prospective, the military to civvi piston claims I see are..........on tail draggers it’s flipping it right on over on landing when they slam on the brakes(Navy)

Not sure why this would be something you noticed in particular from Navy folks?

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

It's an airliner, flying at airliner speeds and airliner altitudes. Built and flown by amateurs. Tell me that's safe. Try.

 

[steingar]

As usual the point went over your head. Many people feel what I said is true. You disagree. The same is true about your statement. I suggest you don’t fly one. Leave it to those more capable.

So you base you "facts" on what you've heard around and what you suspect other people think. Got it. You might be the first person I've ever put on ignore, though I'd hate to do it to a fellow Mooney driver.