The Lancair IV, unsafe at any speed??

[wabower]

I have always thought the IV-P would be a perfect airplane for a T-38 instructor pilot who wanted to expand his horizons--but without a chute or ejection seat.

For me, the issue with the Lancair IV is the high wing loading which in turn leads to a high stall speed and/or anvil like glide characteristics if you get slow. This is an airplane with a low speed envelope more reminiscent of a WWII fighter than of your typical GA type. An inattentive pilot could get behind this airplane very quickly and have a bad day.

 

[Ted]

The accessory it most needs for IFR is real protection against a lightning strike.

Why? In my instrument flying I've not once been struck by lightning, although gotten close enough to see some pretty light shows.

 

[wabower]

Lightning is attracted to airplanes that are fast enough to generate some static electricity. You are safe from such a threat.

Why? In my instrument flying I've not once been struck by lightning, although gotten close enough to see some pretty light shows.

 

[bigred177]

Lightning is attracted to airplanes that are fast enough to generate some static electricity. You are safe from such a threat.

I always thought that was the reason you couldn't take a DA-20 into IMC, no lightning protection?

 

[Ted]

Lightning is attracted to airplanes that are fast enough to generate some static electricity. You are safe from such a threat.

Good point. The advantage of flying world class leaders in losing altitude!

 

[wabower]

I always thought that was the reason you couldn't take a DA-20 into IMC, no lightning protection?

That's not it at all. The manufacturer just hasn't been able to prove to the FAA that the airplane melts into an aerodynamically conforming shape after a strike.

 

[steingar]

That's not it at all. The manufacturer just hasn't been able to prove to the FAA that the airplane melts into an aerodynamically conforming shape after a strike.

If so, why are all the other aircraft, which use identical materials and construction techniques, IFR certified?

I was told that it was the metallic mesh that they build into the IFR birds, that the DA20 lacks, that made them IFR certifiable. But what do I know?

 

[bigred177]

If so, why are all the other aircraft, which use identical materials and construction techniques, IFR certified?

I was told that it was the metallic mesh that they build into the IFR birds, that the DA20 lacks, that made them IFR certifiable. But what do I know?

I imagine that is to help them hold together in turbulence? If that's the case, shouldn't it still be in the DA-20 since some pretty nasty turbulence still exists ouside of a could?

 

[Everskyward]

I imagine that is to help them hold together in turbulence? If that's the case, shouldn't it still be in the DA-20 since some pretty nasty turbulence still exists ouside of a could?

I wonder if it also has something to do with the dissipation of static which occurs in a cloud. Static can cause a lot of radio interference among other things.

 

[jesse]

I imagine that is to help them hold together in turbulence? If that's the case, shouldn't it still be in the DA-20 since some pretty nasty turbulence still exists ouside of a could?

The DA-20 wing is pretty strong. It has two spars and passes the required load testing with only one of them.

 

[wabower]

Not much, evidently, if you couldn't spot the TIC in the previous post.

If so, why are all the other aircraft, which use identical materials and construction techniques, IFR certified?

I was told that it was the metallic mesh that they build into the IFR birds, that the DA20 lacks, that made them IFR certifiable. But what do I know?

 

[steingar]

Less than that, since I don't even know what TIC is.

 

[gismo]

Less than that, since I don't even know what TIC is.

Tongue In Cheek.

 

[jhausch]

http://barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=450826

 

[brcase]

I see part of the problem with the Lancair IV and even the Cirrus is that you have modern aircraft typically with modern glass Panels that have no more or even less capablity than a 40 year old P210. The still don't handle weather any better. People with these kinds of airplanes may have a strong temptationto push the limits of when and where they should be flying. However this is not a new issue for aviation.

Brian

 

[PittsDriver]

I see part of the problem with the Lancair IV and even the Cirrus is that you have modern aircraft typically with modern glass Panels that have no more or even less capablity than a 40 year old P210. The still don't handle weather any better. People with these kinds of airplanes may have a strong temptationto push the limits of when and where they should be flying. However this is not a new issue for aviation.

Brian

Whether the airplanes are any different in capability is irrelevant if pilots won't exercise good judgement. Now the hot topic a while back was does the marketing departments of these companies sell capability beyond the ability of their buyers and is that ethical, moral, or right?

 

[bbchien]

Yup. It's about pilot judgement.

 

[Doggtyred]

And as has been shown many times - speed doesn't kill anymore than the other many factors involved in a crash. Sorry, I really have something against that phrase as it isn't rooted in reality.

Do we know how _often_ Lancair IV's crash compared to other airplanes? Maybe the fatality rate is higher, but the accident rate is lower?

I'd be interested in any data you have to support your assertion that speed doesn't indeed kill. As airspeed increases, the energy involved increases in a non linear, exponential rate.

If you have to fly fast to maintain control effectiveness in an emergency, that is much more energy that must be dissipated in the landing. If the surface you are landing on is less forgiving than a prepared runway, that energy is absorbed by the surface it hits, as well as the airframe and the occupants. The physics involved are not debatable.

Also, while many of the kits do have pre-fab components, the seats and belt attachment points tend not to be proven to conform to crashworthiness standards. I know of more than one surviveable homebuilt crash (personally) that was nonetheless a fatality due to ineffective pilot restraint. That instrument panel doesn't just taste bad.. it will kill you.

Coming in too slow can result in a departure from controlled flight at an unrecoverable altitude, and I think we all know how poorly survival is when contacting the ground when not in controlled flight.

 

[N801BH]

I'd be interested in any data you have to support your assertion that speed doesn't indeed kill. As airspeed increases, the energy involved increases in a non linear, exponential rate.

If you have to fly fast to maintain control effectiveness in an emergency, that is much more energy that must be dissipated in the landing. If the surface you are landing on is less forgiving than a prepared runway, that energy is absorbed by the surface it hits, as well as the airframe and the occupants. The physics involved are not debatable.

Also, while many of the kits do have pre-fab components, the seats and belt attachment points tend not to be proven to conform to crashworthiness standards. I know of more than one surviveable homebuilt crash (personally) that was nonetheless a fatality due to ineffective pilot restraint. That instrument panel doesn't just taste bad.. it will kill you.

Coming in too slow can result in a departure from controlled flight at an unrecoverable altitude, and I think we all know how poorly survival is when contacting the ground when not in controlled flight.

My thoughts exactly.

I can't wait to hear the rebuttel on this sound theory.

Ben.

 

[dmspilot]

Anything with a best glide speed of 165 mph has to be a hoot to shoot across the skies in.

Aircraft with low drag have high best glide speeds.

What glide ratio does that 165mph give you? What glide ratio would you get at a more comfortable airspeed? What is the minimum sink speed? All factors to consider as well, though note that these aren't just rhetorical questions--I don't know much about this aircraft and would be curious as to what the answers are.

 

[N801BH]

And what glide ratio do you get at that speed?


Beats me.... I was just going on the statement of the poster.




Aircraft with low drag have high best glide speeds.

NO kiddin......

 

[Henning]

My thoughts exactly.

I can't wait to hear the rebuttel on this sound theory.

Ben.

While speed is a component in "energy killing", it is not the sole component and you may have a plane with a stall speed of 120 be safer in a controlled impact with terrain than one that has a 40 kt stall speed. It comes down to absorption and resistance of force and keeping the payload (me) secured in an environment that resists intrusion. This is why I'd rather have a 300mph accident in AA/FC than an 80mph accident in a little GTU Econobox, or an Ag Cat over a C-150.

 

[wanttaja]

While speed is a component in "energy killing", it is not the sole component and you may have a plane with a stall speed of 120 be safer in a controlled impact with terrain than one that has a 40 kt stall speed. It comes down to absorption and resistance of force and keeping the payload (me) secured in an environment that resists intrusion. This is why I'd rather have a 300mph accident in AA/FC than an 80mph accident in a little GTU Econobox, or an Ag Cat over a C-150.

Yup. The question, also, is how much the wing position plays in the fatality rate. A high-winged aircraft means that the passengers are surrounded by structure. A low-winged plane, especially one with a bubble canopy, is going to have less structure to protect the head and upper torso.

But...still, the designer can have a huge impact in the survivability of the design, whether low or high wing.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I'd be interested in any data you have to support your assertion that speed doesn't indeed kill. As airspeed increases, the energy involved increases in a non linear, exponential rate.

Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop at the end that does.

 

[N801BH]

While speed is a component in "energy killing", it is not the sole component and you may have a plane with a stall speed of 120 be safer in a controlled impact with terrain than one that has a 40 kt stall speed. It comes down to absorption and resistance of force and keeping the payload (me) secured in an environment that resists intrusion. This is why I'd rather have a 300mph accident in AA/FC than an 80mph accident in a little GTU Econobox, or an Ag Cat over a C-150.

Oh Boy.. Getting to debate Henning is always a treat.
I agree with 90% of what he said. My thoughts are if the terrain is identical for both the 120 knot and 40 knot stall speed I will take the slower one EVERY time. If over Edwards AFB and you have miles of surface to land on then I would take the 120 knot machine as it will make a better story on the party circuit.

I stole this link from another thread here.

http://www.kspr.com/news/kspr-picture-gallery-taney-plane-crash-09252010,0,2937736.photogallery

This appears to be a 40 knot or so off airport incident.
I would NOT want to try it at 120 knots.

As for the GTU Econobox... I am betting Henning knows what IMSA is too. This Henning guy is well traveled.

Ben.

 

[PittsDriver]

I've seen a 30 mph impact with a 4" tree leave an ultralight pilot in a wheel chair for the rest of his life and I've hit the water at 80 mph in a Pitts without a scratch on either of us in the plane. It's all about the decel G and what's absorbing them. But, it would be hard to make the case in the abstract that hitting anything faster vs. slower is safer.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Yup. The question, also, is how much the wing position plays in the fatality rate. A high-winged aircraft means that the passengers are surrounded by structure. A low-winged plane, especially one with a bubble canopy, is going to have less structure to protect the head and upper torso.

But...still, the designer can have a huge impact in the survivability of the design, whether low or high wing.

5. Of the homebuilts I've examined, the Lancair IV has the highest fatality rate (percentage of accidents resulting in a fatality)...about 41%. Homebuilt average is around 25%.

Ron Wanttaja

This is exactly what I was suspicious of, and the whole reason I started this thread. If you took all of the fatal accidents that the La IV has been involved in, and placed the occupants in say, a Meyers 200, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would've survived. Som of them might have walked away with only a few scratches.
If I won the lottery tomorrow, the Lancair IV would be at the top of my list of airplanes to buy. However, I'd insist on having a racecar style rollcage installed, with the seatbelts attached to the rollcage. It would be worth the extra weight, knowing that my chances of surviving a chrash just increased by 10 fold.

 

[Henning]

This is exactly what I was suspicious of, and the whole reason I started this thread. If you took all of the fatal accidents that the La IV has been involved in, and placed the occupants in say, a Meyers 200, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would've survived. Som of them might have walked away with only a few scratches.
If I won the lottery tomorrow, the Lancair IV would be at the top of my list of airplanes to buy. However, I'd insist on having a racecar style rollcage installed, with the seatbelts attached to the rollcage. It would be worth the extra weight, knowing that my chances of surviving a chrash just increased by 10 fold.

I know of one Lancair IVP that was being built with a titanium cage. Don't know if he ever finished it though, it was also getting a 3 rotor Wankel..

 

[Ken Ibold]

1. Pilot Error rate ...

3. Lancair IV stall/spin rate ...

5. Of the homebuilts I've examined, the Lancair IV has the highest fatality rate (percentage of accidents resulting in a fatality)...

6. Based on average fleet size during the study period, the Lancair has the second- or third-highest accident rate ...

I'm a little concerned about your methodology. What is your basis for claiming these figures as "rates"? Against all accidents? Against all registered airframes? Against all flying airframes? Per hour flown? The ONLY way to make rate that's valid in the real world is to do it on hours flown, and that number simply doesn't exist. Working from number of airplanes leads to invalid conclusions. If you dump 750K into your homebuilt, you're sure as heck going to be motivated to fly the thing, moreso than someone with a Kitfox. And the increase in hours increases the exposure. The cross-country mission increases the exposure.

The unfortunate reality is that accidents stats are mushy at best. After more than a decade of banging my head on this particular wall, I have concluded that one's assumptions have a huge bearing on the conclusions.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'm a little concerned about your methodology. What is your basis for claiming these figures as "rates"? Against all accidents? Against all registered airframes? Against all flying airframes? Per hour flown? The ONLY way to make rate that's valid in the real world is to do it on hours flown, and that number simply doesn't exist. Working from number of airplanes leads to invalid conclusions. If you dump 750K into your homebuilt, you're sure as heck going to be motivated to fly the thing, moreso than someone with a Kitfox. And the increase in hours increases the exposure. The cross-country mission increases the exposure.

The unfortunate reality is that accidents stats are mushy at best. After more than a decade of banging my head on this particular wall, I have concluded that one's assumptions have a huge bearing on the conclusions.

Sometimes, one has to work with what one has available. And, there are a lot of confounding variables that play into these things.

As an example, the Insurance Institue for Highway Safety did a study in 2005 of driver fatality rates over a three year period (2000 - 2003) as a function of vehicle make and model (much larger sample size than is available for aircraft) - one thing that stands out is that (according to the numbers as calculated) you are almost twice as likely to die driving a Mercury Grand Marquis (83 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years) as compared to a Ford Crown Victoria (53). But, they are essentially the same design.

In Ron's analysis, the total hours flown shouldn't have a big impact on the percentage of all accidents that are fatal, but the type of pilot / mission will. A weekend warrior who never leaves the pattern is going to run off the runway or groundloop for a no fatality accident. The "gotta get there" cross country pilot is more likely to do VFR into IMC, flying into an embedded cell, CFIT, etc. (almost always fatal).

From a personal perspective, the exposure as a function of number of hours is irrelevent. My concern is how likely am I to end up at the bottom of a smoking hole before cancer finally gets me. Period.

 

[Ted]

I fully agree with Ken on this. Just because a particular statistic doesn't exist doesn't make an invalid statistic suddenly valid. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. This is doubly true as statistics go to an average, and you need to look at yourself and objectively figure out where you fall on the bell curve (I know, I'm asking a lot here).

So, my logic would say the Lancair IV-P is a plane that requires someone on the upper end of the bell curve to fly safely. Unfortunately, a lot of people probably assess themselves as being there and actually aren't. The fact that those people then create small craters in the earth's surface is not an issue of the plane so much as of the pilot.

 

[wanttaja]

I'm a little concerned about your methodology. What is your basis for claiming these figures as "rates"? Against all accidents? Against all registered airframes? Against all flying airframes? Per hour flown? The ONLY way to make rate that's valid in the real world is to do it on hours flown, and that number simply doesn't exist. Working from number of airplanes leads to invalid conclusions. If you dump 750K into your homebuilt, you're sure as heck going to be motivated to fly the thing, moreso than someone with a Kitfox. And the increase in hours increases the exposure. The cross-country mission increases the exposure.

The unfortunate reality is that accidents stats are mushy at best. After more than a decade of banging my head on this particular wall, I have concluded that one's assumptions have a huge bearing on the conclusions.

My rates are based on the average of the fleet size during the subject period, based on the FAA registrations databases, and the NTSB accident reports. Yes, there are planes registered that don't really exist; just like there are homebuilts on the registry that the FAA does not count as homebuilts. With few exceptions, my analysis concentrates on later models, and mostly on kit aircraft. This is to minimize the effect of abandoned homebuilts that remain on the registry. Doesn't eliminate it, of course.

One exception to my "newer design" rule was an analysis of canard aircraft, comparing the Long-EZ, Velocity, and Quickie. The Long-EZ came out considerably lower, but one must temper that with the knowledge that the Long-EZ was an older, plans-built design and there might be more abandoned aircraft on the registry. However, the Quickie is an almost-contemporary of the Long-EZ, and its rate was considerably higher.

I use fleet size to compute the rates because it is the only true statistic available. The AOPA, for example, uses an FAA estimate of overall flight hours. The FAA says is that Joe Smith will fly 200 hours per year if he owns a production aircraft like a Cessna 172, but only 29 hours a year if he owns a homebuilt like a Lancair IV. I feel this method is more flawed than my own.

I actually *do* make estimates as to the average annual flight hours for models of homebuilt aircraft, based on the aircraft in my accident database and compute an accident rate based on flight hours. I get a 60-hours a year average (again, the FAA's estimate is 29 hours/year) for the overall fleet, with planes like RVs seeing ~85 hours/year and Kitfoxes down around 45. The methodology is full of rough assumptions, though, so I don't use the results in my comparisons.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Keith Lane]

Oh Boy.. Getting to debate Henning is always a treat.

As for the GTU Econobox... I am betting Henning knows what IMSA is too. This Henning guy is well traveled.

Ben.

International Motor Sports Association..........

Personally, the GTP Porsche 935K3 Kremer Brothers cars stirred my blood the most, though we competed in a GTU 911 a couple of years.

 

[dmspilot]

you are almost twice as likely to die driving a Mercury Grand Marquis (83 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years) as compared to a Ford Crown Victoria (53).

83 is not double 53, but just barely over 50% more.

Without a p-value data like this are statistically meaningless.

Even if you did, you still have to remember that correlation does not indicate causation.

In Ron's analysis, the total hours flown shouldn't have a big impact on the percentage of all accidents that are fatal, but the type of pilot / mission will. A weekend warrior who never leaves the pattern is going to run off the runway or groundloop for a no fatality accident. The "gotta get there" cross country pilot is more likely to do VFR into IMC, flying into an embedded cell, CFIT, etc. (almost always fatal).

I agree. I think percentage of accidents that are fatal is an acceptable measure as long as you're comparing aircraft that are used similarly.

The unfortunate reality is that accidents stats are mushy at best. After more than a decade of banging my head on this particular wall, I have concluded that one's assumptions have a huge bearing on the conclusions.

I agree with this as well. The data necessary to do an accurate analysis is simply not collected.

 

[N801BH]

International Motor Sports Association..........

Personally, the GTP Porsche 935K3 Kremer Brothers cars stirred my blood the most, though we competed in a GTU 911 a couple of years.

My favorite was the 01 car of Interscope Racing with Danny ' on the gas' driving. That and some wonderful memories of Sebring 12 hour and the famous 'flagpole' area... Oh, those were the good times.

Ps. The year Benny Parsons and Phil Parsons shared that Buick GTO car was ok too.

There is a good reason why an american V-8 is in my plane.

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

 

[timrj]

The typical GA accident usually boils down to the pilot and decision making. So - make good decisions and the plane is out of the equation.

I, for one, would love to have a IV. Fast is nice.

 

[wanttaja]

The typical GA accident usually boils down to the pilot and decision making. So - make good decisions and the plane is out of the equation.

I, for one, would love to have a IV. Fast is nice.

About 77% of Cessna 172 accidents were due to pilot error, vs. about 50% of the Lancair IVs and 46% of Cessna 210s. Pilot experience has a lot to do with that...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyersfan31]

Planes don't kill people. People flying planes kill people. I see nothing inherently wrong with the IV. It demands respect, and one's attention. There are many pilots, flying all manner of aircraft, who do not grant the act of flying the respect it demands. A Cherokee will be more forgiving of such defiance than, say, a Lancair IV. So it goes.

 

[wabower]

I think the Malibu history is a good affirmation of your pilot skill vs airframe capability theory.

I fully agree with Ken on this. Just because a particular statistic doesn't exist doesn't make an invalid statistic suddenly valid. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. This is doubly true as statistics go to an average, and you need to look at yourself and objectively figure out where you fall on the bell curve (I know, I'm asking a lot here).

So, my logic would say the Lancair IV-P is a plane that requires someone on the upper end of the bell curve to fly safely. Unfortunately, a lot of people probably assess themselves as being there and actually aren't. The fact that those people then create small craters in the earth's surface is not an issue of the plane so much as of the pilot.

 

[Ted]

I think the Malibu history is a good affirmation of your pilot skill vs airframe capability theory.

As it goes. Airplanes are really not that difficult of beasts to fly (at least, none of the ones that I've flown, which includes a couple of Lancairs). But people who continue to bite off more than they can chew and end up in NTSB reports.