Lancair pilot takes shot at 58 year old record

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,316
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
If you've followed Bill in the past, you'll remember record breaking is not a new thing to him.
2:00am, he just passed by here... after a 2.5hr mechanical in Austin Tx.
https://www.6zqpilot.com/
 
Looks like he’s expected to land shortly after 10p EST. This will be interesting to follow throughout the day.
 
So, does he sleep while on AP? I can't see how he could do it without sleeping on AP.
 
He was parked beside me at Airventure this year. Super cool guy with all kinds of stories. Vacations for me are to SC or FL. This guy and his wife take their Lancair to South Africa for vacation.
 
The places that plane has been... impressive!
 
Slide side note... but the Lancair is SUCH a cool plane.. really bummed that Cessna killed it

Outside of a parachute it seriously gives Cirrus a run for it's money... in many ways it's a superior airplane (yeah, I said it). Goes to prove that it's not all about the airplane, you need a solid marketing and company presence for sales figures.. it's a business after all. Hopefully Mooney can figure their stuff out soon!

 
^wing was taken to 26 Gs in cert testing. Nuts!
 
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Lancair, but Bill’s (the subject pilot) is not a Cessna TTX, it is a Lancair IV (unpressurized & retractable)
No chute, but Im pretty sure it has much better speed than the TTX and maybe half the price.
(Bill’s is configured for range, so his speed is purposely curtailed)
 
I think Lancair would have done just fine had it not ben for Garmin and a freak hailstorm.
 
Tantalum said:
^wing was taken to 26 Gs in cert testing. Nuts!
Click to expand...

Nuts is right! A 172 has (if I remember correctly) +3.8/-1.50 g limit with flaps up. Of course you have to multiply those figures x 1.5 to arrive at the ultimate load. With the flaps down the limits are even less. I Imagine TTx could have been designed to be lighter if they chose to stay within the FAA mandated limits than design it with a 26g wing. Composite aircraft do heat up on the ramp (which is why most of them are painted white) and after 4 hours in the sun on a 105 degree day the composite structure will be weaker, but so will aluminum (but to a lesser extent.) I'm sure Cessna knows what it was doing and it's sad that the airplane was put out of production. Perhaps a BRS would have saved the day?
 
Tantalum said:
Slide side note... but the Lancair is SUCH a cool plane.. really bummed that Cessna killed it
Click to expand...

No, Cessna never owned the Lancair.

Lancair is (still) an experimental aircraft company, that at one point certified an airplane called the Columbia 300. There was some confusion because they were still called "Lancair" and nobody wanted to pay certified prices for experimental (even though it was certified) or they didn't realize it was certified. So, they split it off into the new Lancair Certified Aircraft Company. Still confusion because they retained the "Lancair" name, so they changed the name to Columbia Aircraft Company. During this process, the 300 was replaced by the 350, and they threw a turbo on a 350 and made the 400.

The other thing they suffered from is competing with Cirrus. They didn't have anything but a high-performance, four-seat composite single... Exactly the market Cirrus was in. Cirrus is really damn good at marketing, so it didn't matter that the Columbias had better performance (this is largely what causes Mooney's suffering these days as well). So, Cessna, who was looking for a high performance composite single to replace their failed "NGP" project, bought the Columbia Aircraft Company and the Columbia 350 and 400 became the Cessna 350 Corvalis and Cessna 400 TTx.

Meanwhile, Lancair has been operating the entire time, ever since they spun off the "Lancair Certified Aircraft Company" into its own thing, and has never been owned by Cessna.
 
Last edited:
Brad Smith said:
Nuts is right! A 172 has (if I remember correctly) +3.8/-1.50 g limit with flaps up. Of course you have to multiply those figures x 1.5 to arrive at the ultimate load. With the flaps down the limits are even less. I Imagine TTx could have been designed to be lighter if they chose to stay within the FAA mandated limits than design it with a 26g wing. Composite aircraft do heat up on the ramp (which is why most of them are painted white) and after 4 hours in the sun on a 105 degree day the composite structure will be weaker, but so will aluminum (but to a lesser extent.) I'm sure Cessna knows what it was doing and it's sad that the airplane was put out of production. Perhaps a BRS would have saved the day?
Click to expand...

Want to know where the 1.5 safety factor comes from? Turns out for most aluminum structures the breaking strength is about 1.5 times the yield strength of metals. So when you pull 4G's in the Cessna designed for 3.8G's it is true you should not have a wing failure, however you may permanently deform the wing (yield) rendering it airworthy. Now some other factors do play into the loading such as Gust loads and Fatigue strength.

I once had a former Cessna engineer tell me that when they initially designed a new structure they would build a prototype and test it. The understanding was if it did not fail on the 1st x number of tests they would fire the engineer that designed it for overbuilding it(to heavy). After it failed they would strengthen the area that failed and retest until it just met the design criteria.

Fiberglass is reasonably similar to Aluminum in structural properties and the 1.5 safety factor works pretty well for it. But composites have much more potential for defects during construction so higher safety factors are often used. Carbon composite on the other hand, the yield and breaking strength is almost the same so when you design for a limit load you are forced to design for ultimate load plus a safety factor so you are forced to overbuild the structure more so than aluminum to account for safety factors and quality control during manufacture, That is how they end up with such high design load factors like 26G.

The Thunder Mustang I worked on was designed for 12G and given a limit load of 6g's. I know one pilot that routinely pulled 8 g's which made the engineers cringe. Am not aware of one ever having an inflight structural failure.

Brian
 
Brad Smith said:
Perhaps a BRS would have saved the day?
Click to expand...
The TTx is an awesome plane.. but I don't think the BRS would save it.. I think the BRS is a common red herring with Cirrus. There are plenty of BRS options out there and people aren't flocking to put them in their planes. Granted, the experimental people probably have a higher risk tolerance so aren't bothered by the extra weight and cost. The chute certainly helps, but it's akin to an extra cup holder in your car.. nice to have but not the sole reason people are buying it

flyingcheesehead said:
Cirrus is really damn good at marketing
Click to expand...
Completely true. They're selling a lifestyle, the #CirrusLife.. but two decades into the 2000's this is true across the board.. many crappy products exist solely because of a lifestyle and brand appeal. Mind you, objectively, the Cirrus is far superior to anything else offered in the GA market to a **NON PILOT** eyes.. grab an average person off the street and sit them in a Mooney, Bo, 182, Saratoga and I bet that 9/10 times they'll pick the Cirrus.. because it "feels" modern and "feels like my car" .. so marketing is a big part of it, but so is the general interior aesthetic comforts of the plane, even if it comes at a small cost in payload, speed, performance (compared to some other GA planes). Most pilots like the brute steampunk force of flying, but most pilots are also tired of flying alone or with wives and girlfriends who simple tolerate the experience for them.. the Cirrus lets you "trick" the non flying public into flying with you

flyingcheesehead said:
this is largely what causes Mooney's suffering these days as well
Click to expand...
I don't think we can blame Mooney's demise on marketing, entirely. The plane appeals to a very niche buyer.. people who favor low cost, low fuel burn, and high speed, and place comfort as a tiny priority. The other problem with Mooney is their very own audience and buyer pool.. people buy Mooney because "it's the best bang for my buck" - people claim this time and time again.. that you can buy an awesome plane for under $100K, fly really fast, really far, and on relatively little gas.. so WHY, would anyone drop $700K when they can pick one up for a fraction of the cost for the same (in some cases better, depending on which metric) performance? Eventually Cirrus will have the same issue.. why spend $1M on a plane when you can buy one that's virtually the same for $400K? I think that's a big part of the reason why Cirrus sales are also 1/3 of what they once were

flyingcheesehead said:
Meanwhile, Lancair has been operating the entire time, ever since they spun off the "Lancair Certified Aircraft Company" into its own thing, and has never been owned by Cessna.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the details.. I know the TTx has an interesting history but not the full details of how it ended up in Cessna's product line. Honestly, I think Cessna is just trying to kill off piston GA one by one.. they're not interested in competing with Piper or Cirrus.. they're interested in the corporate turbine market and if it wasn't for flight schools they wouldn't be building piston GA. I mean, who's buying a new Bonanza or a Baron..?
 
brcase said:
Am not aware of one ever having an inflight structural failure
Click to expand...
Carbon fiber is amazing.. the massive hydro foiling blue water racing catamarans are a site to behold.. The AC72 weighs 6 tonnes and is entirely lifted out of the water by *A* small paper thin foil.. it's not even a straight foil, but follows a complex radius shape.. amazing
 
Curious about the record he was trying to break. Someone did this 58 years ago?
 
Everskyward said:
Curious about the record he was trying to break. Someone did this 58 years ago?
Click to expand...
The record is officially called "Speed Around the World Westbound Class C-1,d". Max Conrad set the record 58 years ago in a Piper Aztec, in 14 legs. His record has not been broken since, which many attribute to the political environment in Africa which, since Max's flight, has seen many changes not exactly favoring general aviation visits. Thus the nickname "the unbeatable record".

I have had the pleasure to meet Bill on a few occasions. He holds two official records already, for "Distance" (from Guam to Jacksonville, Florida - more than 7,000 nautical miles!!!) and "speed around the earth over both the earth's poles", in the same class, flown in a heavily modified Lancair 4 (N6ZQ) which Bill and his wife Sue built specifically for long distance flights. It holds 361 gallons of fuel, to name just one of the many modifications. His plan is to make this westbound flight in five legs.

Bill is the real deal, a retired airline captain, and a true gentleman who happily shares his knowledge with anyone who wants to learn. He's given presentations at Oshkosh and Sun 'n Fun about his previous record flights.

This past spring, I had the opportunity to sit down with Bill for an interview where he talks about his Lancair, all the modifications they made (e.g. he has three, yes, THREE fully redundant electrical systems, modeled after the Boeing 727), and his two existing records. The video of the interview is on my channel, I'll include it below for convenience.

I don't know what happened to cause his diversions today. I would have loved to see him succeed on his first try, of course. Bill is as analytical and calm as they come; he will assess the situation after he waked up from a well-deserved rest and then make a decision to abort or continue. His flight over the South Pole was also not without setbacks; he talks about that in the video. And yet he succeeded.

Godspeed, Bill, on this exciting adventure!

- Martin

 
https://www.6zqpilot.com/post/hangar-in-sbp
says:-
"Hangar in SBP?
The sun has set on the East Coast as ZQGC collects information on a mechanical fix, permit extensions and re-declaration while Bill gets much needed sleep. The FBO at SBP does not have a hangar. It would be great if someone knew of a hangar where Bill could remove his cowls and work inside. We will not know if he plans to continue with this attempt, start a second attempt in the next 72 hours, try again at a later date, or let the unbreakable record stand as a challenge for someone else. Everything will look more possible with some rest. Thanks for your interest and support.

If you can help, please post to Facebook or Instagram @6ZQ_Pilot"

For sure not too late to continue.
 
Spring Ford said:
The same flight holds the C-1 and C-1d records. If I knew what these were I would post it:) I don't know how "round the world" is counted either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Conrad#FAI_certified_world_records
8 March 1961 PA-23 Aztec C-1 Speed around the world, westbound 198.27 km/h (123.20 mph)
8 March 1961 PA-23 Aztec C-1d Speed around the world, westbound 198.27 km/h (123.20 mph)
Click to expand...
Max Conrad did this in 14 legs. Looking at the speed, I can't imagine that counts the stops. Does the flight need to get done within a certain time frame? Amazing that Bill is trying to do it in only 5 legs.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Max Conrad's route. 22,651 miles
Click to expand...

22,651 nautical miles = 26066 miles - That was baffling me for a while. Then I looked at the panel in your post :)

I finally found the reference document for this record.

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc_section_2_2013.pdf
Page 18, 4.6.7.

4.6.7 Speed Around the World, Westbound

(Interesting points)
The course shall be approved or declared in writing prior to takeoff - (I guess the distance is calculated from this.)
The course distance from the start point through each control point to the finish point shall not be less than 36,770 km. (22848 miles)
Time on the ground at intermediate landing places shall count as flying time.
The achieved speed shall be determined by dividing the distance of the course by the elapsed time.

So you set your own course (therefore distance) then it's total distance over total elapsed time = speed.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
he has two offers, thanks for putting that up
Click to expand...

His "digital marketing/commnications" is, not to put too fine a point on it - **** :)

It was only because I fiddled around for a while and eventually got the blog post up that I saw the request.

Good that someone could help out.
 
Spring Ford said:
22,651 nautical miles = 26066 miles - That was baffling me for a while. Then I looked at the panel in your post :)
Click to expand...


LOL! It was late, I didn't even think of that. Also not the first time I've messed up that conversion :mad2:
 
aftCG said:
Beating a 1961 Aztec in a race. Now that is impressive.
Click to expand...
With a Lancair/TTx/Corvallis/400/whatever-this-poor-identity-crisis-plane-wants-to-be-called .. definitely impressive feat for sure what he's doing but honestly not that hard to fly faster than an Aztec
 
6ZQ undergoing repairs
Bill had a good night's rest and he is evaluating his options.



His first step is addressing the maintenance issues with 6ZQ. One of the cylinders misfired after about 5 hours of flight time. In Austin, he noted a loose lead wire to that cylinder, adjusted it and launched for HNL (Honolulu). The engine ran normally for several hours, but, when the problem reappeared, he diverted to SBP (San Luis Obispo).



There are several theories about the issue and the fix. We think that it is a connection problem between the ignition and the cylinder. This can be anything from the lead wires, the sparkplug, its gap, how the ceramic leads were attached, etc. Our sponsors have been have been very responsive and helpful with troubleshooting. We won't have a complete answer until Bill makes the repairs.



If 6ZQ is repaired in a timely manner, we can:

- commence a new attempt starting from Southern California. This ~24 hour window is available because the overflight permits have not yet expired, or

-reschedule another attempt in the coming months, or

-let Max Conrad's unbreakable record stand as a challenge for someone else.



Standby for further updates.
 
Latest update:

“The ignition problem has been resolved and Bill is relocating to Ontario Airport in Southern California. If all is well with this flight, he will re start his attempt tomorrow at 0400L, 1200Z.
Thank you to Tres Clement and San Luis Engineering Services, LLC, for their generosity and support.”
 
Wow, he's going to be tired starting out on a new attempt after all this work up front.
 
Tantalum said:
With a Lancair/TTx/Corvallis/400/whatever-this-poor-identity-crisis-plane-wants-to-be-called .. definitely impressive feat for sure what he's doing but honestly not that hard to fly faster than an Aztec
Click to expand...

I recently shattered the Cable-to-French-Valley record in my RV-9A, previously held by a Beech Sundowner. :D

Seriously, though, I respect Bill's attempt. No small undertaking with all the planning involved. Wouldn't want to fly over all that water with a single engine. :eek:
 
Sadly, there were more hiccups (different ones) on this latest attempt. Fro his FaceBook page:

"Bummer, Bill has had to turn back to So Cal. He may have lost his HF (High Frequency) antennae on the long taxi in KONT (Ontario Airport)."
 
Oh man, this isn't over yet. From his FaceBook page:

"And he's off again. Since he is departing from the same airport, we're able to reset the clock to zero, saving Bill 3 hours. Let's hope all these minor issues are behind us."

You sure can't accuse Bill of being a quitter!

- Martin
 
He's well over halfway to Honolulu now, and the winds are way better than they had been earlier - so there's that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top