The Lancair IV, unsafe at any speed??

Ted DuPuis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lancair IV pilots in the accident reports are quite a bit more experienced than the run-of-the-mill homebuilt accident. In my 1998-2007 accident database, the median total time for Lancair IV pilots was 2,380 hours, vs. 950 overall. A median of 100 hours time-in-type vs. 58 for the overall homebuilts. If you look solely at stick-and-rudder errors (Pilot Miscontrol), the Lancair IV has a lower rate than the Vans RV-6A.
pilot_error.jpg

The Lancair IV also sees a lower rate of judgment-error accidents, such as buzzing or continued VFR into IMC. This is probably due to the more-experienced pilot base.

Ron Wanttaja
 
The high rate of pilot miscontrol leads me to believe that the side mounted joystick controls on the Lancair IV are a bit counterintuitive.

When you're on the edge of control, you do what is instinctive, most people are used to conventional controls and these pilots are likely making mistakes because most of their time is in a different cockpit layout.

I wonder if you could modify the L-IV to have a conventional yoke?
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
The high rate of pilot miscontrol leads me to believe that the side mounted joystick controls on the Lancair IV are a bit counterintuitive.
Click to expand...
RV-6A has a conventional stick. So does the Kitfox. Both have higher rates of miscontrol.

More likely to be due to more subtle issues, such as stick force per g, etc.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I've flown planes with sidesticks, both Lancairs and Cirri. Also flown with yokes and conventional sticks. I have not found them to be problematic or counter-intuitive. They really are pretty simple to fly, and the more I fly with the side-stick layout the more I like it. I prefer the Lancair incarnation to the Cirrus one, though. One of the advantages to the sidestick is that it is the least likely to have interference with legs. I have observed both conventional sticks and yokes as having a high tendency of interference with legs.

Modifying an aircraft to have a different control layout than it's designed for would be a tremendous amount of work. I'm not convinced that's a particularly good idea.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
II prefer the Lancair incarnation to the Cirrus one, though.
Click to expand...

As do I. There's just something more pleasing about holding a side stick vs. the side yoke that you find in Cirrus aircraft. But the bottom line is that after using it for about 6 seconds, you don't even notice what you're holding anymore and it's a non-issue.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have observed both conventional sticks and yokes as having a high tendency of interference with legs.
Click to expand...

Had that happen last Saturday - the previous owner had a small thermometer hanging from a binder clip overhead. At about 1' AGL it fell and startled my daughter who moved her legs to one side to see what fell - pushing on the stick. I didn't need that.
 
Unscrew her stick. I kid you not. I do that all the time. In conventional aircraft, the Rt. seater, if a pax, gets the seat ALL THE WAY BACK (I have five other seats).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Modifying an aircraft to have a different control layout than it's designed for would be a tremendous amount of work. I'm not convinced that's a particularly good idea.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of Swifts have been switched from the original butterfly yoke to a center stick arrangement, which IMHO is a BIG improvement.

Only costs about 3 AMU's, from what I hear.
 
Non pilot right seat passengers (unless I really trust them) are left with the seat all the way back...

denny-o
 
bbchien said:
Unscrew her stick. I kid you not. I do that all the time. In conventional aircraft, the Rt. seater, if a pax, gets the seat ALL THE WAY BACK (I have five other seats).
Click to expand...

That would take a hacksaw. Making it removable would be a good modification.
 
wanttaja said:
RV-6A has a conventional stick. So does the Kitfox. Both have higher rates of miscontrol.

More likely to be due to more subtle issues, such as stick force per g, etc.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
IIRC the RV6 ailerons are very sensitive over the first little bit of movement with less effective rate as you push the stick further to the side.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading every NTSB reported accident for the Lancair IV, it seems over 90% of them occurred because of an engine failure, and a few of them reported air bubbles in the fuel lines.

Are there other accidents occurring because of structural failure? If so, the NTSB doesn't know about it....
 
The problem is that the Lancair IV without power is similar in wing loading to an F-80, but it has nothing in the cabin from Martin Baker. Put that in there and you've lost your weight/payload/speed advantage.
 
I've flown a IVP turboprop and it's like grabbing a dragon by the tail. Things happen very quickly and you don't want to let the airplane get ahead of you. Stay on top of your game, don't fug around with it, and it's a fantastic ride.
- Russ
 
I agree Russ. it's just not a lot of GA guys have played with a frame at 25-30 lbs per square of loading. They're different animals. Questair Venture was like that, too. 22" and 220 and you had 240 knots. You had to approach......precisely.

I suppose it's the same thing as a guy in a skyhawk with full tanks and four aboard calling it an "unsafe" airplane. It's not the airplane, it's the nut behind the yoke.

However, in our court system, if your flight characteristics are distant from the "norm" one could lose his shorts in front of a jury.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
I suppose it's the same thing as a guy in a skyhawk with full tanks and four aboard calling it an "unsafe" airplane. It's not the airplane, it's the nut behind the yoke.
Click to expand...

There are few bad airplanes, but many bad pilots.
 
I'd be interested to know what the hive mind thinks comprises a bad airplane, and a short list of examples.
 
It's one in which the community of aviators doesn't have the correct training to handle. Now this is soft of a chicken-and-egg thing....and reflects on the community of aviators that generally resists change.

Grumman AA-1A. Perfectly fine aircraft so long as you NEVER get behind the power curve until within 5 feet of the ground. But the tail is small and the wing loading high, and ~100 hp was interpreted as anemic. Cheetah and Tiger corrected all that.

1968 Cardinal. Underpowered by community standards, with a wing that built up TONS of drag at high AOA. Tail that you had to be careful to NOT stall. Very efficeint little bird, but get into a corner and she'll bite. You just had to stay out of the corner.

BAC Comet. Fell apart due to lack of understanding as to metal fatigue issues. Public hates when all hands die.

E-188. Fell apart due to lack of understanding of gyroscopic forces. Rescued by the USN because of "halfway around the globe range". Never a commercial success because the public doesn't like engines that fall off.

Mitsubishi MU2. FINE aircraft, with unparalled breadth of the speed envelope. Problem is, the various envelopes accomplished with full span slotted flaps and no ailerons, had other consequences. Spoilers for turns means OEI operation requires new learning. Also, ROC sucked until you got to 150 knots (highly loaded wings). Flap deployments had very limited structural speed ranges without a whloe lot of overlap.

Aerostar. I think it's a great plane. But it's a real SOB to get to the inboard lower right engine spark plugs. Crazy setup. Total hydraulic birdie, too. Nosewheel steering takes some getting used to (tat, tap, tap). Not a big (but adequate) envelope between Vyse and Vmc.

Lancair 4. Wayy wing loaded. Kinda needs to be respected like the T38- pull off the power and you're a lawn dart. Keep your speed UP. Great ride, as has been posted, but if you're incompetent, well yer gonna die.
 
A good list, Bruce. I'd agree overall.

Of course, the Lancair IV, Aerostar, and MU-2 are all planes I want. So I guess I have an affinity for bad planes. :)
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
A good list, Bruce. I'd agree overall.

Of course, the Lancair IV, Aerostar, and MU-2 are all planes I want. So I guess I have an affinity for bad planes. :)
Click to expand...


That Ted is a bad , bad, man.......:D ( sung to the tune of bad, bad Leroy Brown.)
 
N801BH said:
That Ted is a bad , bad, man.......:D ( sung to the tune of bad, bad Leroy Brown.)
Click to expand...

The baddest man in the whole damn town...

(at least according to DHS ;))
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A good list, Bruce. I'd agree overall.

Of course, the Lancair IV, Aerostar, and MU-2 are all planes I want. So I guess I have an affinity for bad planes. :)
Click to expand...
According to Richard Bach, the BD5J should be added to this list. He claimed it was the most unsafe aircraft on takeoff he'd ever seen. Pitch up a few degrees less than optimal and you blew through Vlo in a few seconds and rotate a few degrees too high and you'd stall a hundred feet in the air.
 
Austin said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading every NTSB reported accident for the Lancair IV, it seems over 90% of them occurred because of an engine failure, and a few of them reported air bubbles in the fuel lines.
Click to expand...

Not that I've seen. My 1998-2007 database has 33 Lancair IV accidents, and only one of them was related to the fuel system...and that was attributed to the builder's improper venting of a fuel tank.

My cause breakdown for the Lancair IVs:

Pilot Miscontrol 46.9%
Builder Error 3.1%
Maintenance Error 3.1%
Undetermined Loss of Power 15.6%
Engine Mechanical 9.4%
Other Mechanical 6.3%
VFR into IFR 3.1%
Undetermined 6.3%
Other 6.3%

* "Pilot Miscontrol" refers to errors in the physical control of the aircraft (inadvertent stalls, undershooting, etc.).

My database only runs to the end of 2007, but I feel that the above percentages probably hold up for the next few years. Might be one or two additional, but I'd doubt it jumps to 90%.

Ron Wanttaja
 
gismo said:
According to Richard Bach, the BD5J should be added to this list. He claimed it was the most unsafe aircraft on takeoff he'd ever seen. Pitch up a few degrees less than optimal and you blew through Vlo in a few seconds and rotate a few degrees too high and you'd stall a hundred feet in the air.
Click to expand...
Thank you Lance. I forgot that one. It's the one GA I listed, in which I don't have any time.

It had all the hallmarks of a disaster. Short coupled, high wing loading, etc etc.

I have to add Questair Venture to the list, too.
 
bbchien said:
American AA-1 Yankee. Perfectly fine aircraft so long as you NEVER get behind the power curve until within 5 feet of the ground. But the tail is small and the wing loading high, and ~100 hp was interpreted as anemic. Cheetah and Tiger corrected all that.
Click to expand...
Agreed, as edited above. AA-1A/B/C ("Trainer", "Tr2" and "Lynx"), built by American Aviation and later Grumman American, have the more docile airfoil used on the Traveler, Cheetah and Tiger.
 
gismo said:
Bad, bad Ted DooPie, Baddest man in the whole damn sky...:D

(how does one pronounce DuPuis anyhow?)
Click to expand...

Du - Pwee

Although I really prefer just being called "Ted." :)
 
But you've gotta admit it has all the makings of a great Abbott & Costello routine.

Desk Clerk: Did you say your last name is DuPree?

Ted: No, I said it was Du Puis.

Clerk: Yeah, that's what I said DuPree. We don't have reservations for any DuPree.

Ted: You misunderstood, it's . . .



Ted DuPuis said:
Du - Pwee

Although I really prefer just being called "Ted." :)
Click to expand...
 
Pilawt said:
Agreed, as edited above. AA-1A/B/C ("Trainer", "Tr2" and "Lynx"), built by American Aviation and later Grumman American, have the more docile airfoil used on the Traveler, Cheetah and Tiger.
Click to expand...

Eh,.. I dunno. I got an AA1-A that I fly a couple times a week and I honestly don't know what all the fuss was about. I Did my initial training in it too. Went through all the stall manouvers and still do. It's an EASY plane to fly as long as you do what your supposed to do. I tend to think that instead of the lil' Grumman being a picky plane to fly. It is more the Cessnas' letting pilots get sloppy, and then doing a transition. She DOES become a brick without power though!
 
Last edited:
Dale Young said:
Eh,.. I dunno. I got an AA1-A that I fly a couple times a week and I honestly don't know what all the fuss was about. I Did my initial training in it too. Went through all the stall manouvers and still do. It's an EASY plane to fly as long as you do what your supposed to do. I tend to think that instead of the lil' Grumman being a picky plane to fly. It is more the Cessnas' letting pilots get sloppy, and then doing a transition. She DOES become a brick without power though!
Click to expand...

IIRC, the AA-1 has a different and less forgiving airfoil than the -A, B, and C models.
 
kyleb said:
IIRC, the AA-1 has a different and less forgiving airfoil than the -A, B, and C models.
Click to expand...


Yeah,....You're correct, I shoulda pointed that out, but I think they were initially speaking of the AA1-A. The first AA1 was a different beast. A bit less forgiving. Ya wouldnt think that a small airfoil change could make THAT much difference, but it did.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
But you've gotta admit it has all the makings of a great Abbott & Costello routine.

Desk Clerk: Did you say your last name is DuPree?

Ted: No, I said it was Du Puis.

Clerk: Yeah, that's what I said DuPree. We don't have reservations for any DuPree.

Ted: You misunderstood, it's . . .
Click to expand...

When one of my cousins got married another cousin's wife said to the soon-to-be new member of the DuPuis family:

"You know what your last name will be now, right?"
"DuPuis, of course."
"No. It will be DuPree, Doo-poo-is, Do-pwoy..."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
When one of my cousins got married another cousin's wife said to the soon-to-be new member of the DuPuis family:

"You know what your last name will be now, right?"
"DuPuis, of course."
"No. It will be DuPree, Doo-poo-is, Do-pwoy..."
Click to expand...
That's funny, I knew immediately how to pronounce your name but I guess I took French in HS. My last name should be easy to pronounce because it's all phonetic but for whatever reason people seem to go blank when they see it.
 
Everskyward said:
That's funny, I knew immediately how to pronounce your name but I guess I took French in HS. My last name should be easy to pronounce because it's all phonetic but for whatever reason people seem to go blank when they see it.
Click to expand...

Whether or not one has taken French makes all the difference. What I like about Canadian customs is I can call up and simply tell them my name without spelling it.

One of my coworkers has a French last name as well, except he was actually raised in France for some years of his life. Frequently, we'll start our conversations with a heavily accented "Bonjour monsieur DuPuis!"

I then had a French-Canadian coworker who asked me if I knew my name was French. :idea:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
"No. It will be DuPree..."
Click to expand...
It's interesting that people can see letters in words that aren't really there such as the 'R' in DuPuis. Must be related to how human memory works. In the Detroit area there was a major highway called "Lahser Road" (lah-sir) and way more than half the people who lived around there pronounced it "Lasher Road" (lash-her). In that case the troublesome letter was present but in the "wrong" place but I think it's the same issue when people want to add a letter.
 
gismo said:
It's interesting that people can see letters in words that aren't really there such as the 'R' in DuPuis. Must be related to how human memory works. In the Detroit area there was a major highway called "Lahser Road" (lah-sir) and way more than half the people who lived around there pronounced it "Lasher Road" (lash-her). In that case the troublesome letter was present but in the "wrong" place but I think it's the same issue when people want to add a letter.
Click to expand...

I rmmebeer rdenaig swohmeere taht if you had all the leretts of the wrod, and the prpeor frsit and lsat lreetts, the oedrr dndi't mtaetr. So it wouldn't surprise me if the process in the brain that recognizes words also adds letters where they don't exist, or changing the order.
 
It's all in the training and skill and discipline of the pilot

When I bought my Glassair I had just left the USAF, where I went through pilot training and B-52 ACE, flying T-38s. The factory pilot explained to me that the Glassair handled like a fighter, but after the T-38 the Glassair seemed incredibly tame and easy to fly (comparing either plane to the B-52 would be like... well.. there simply is no comparison to the B-52, it's a pig). The roll rate of the Glassair was 1/6th that of the T-38, the rate of climb about 1/20th, final approach 160kias minimum vs. About 60 in the Glassair. Not to mention the essentially neutral stability in the T-38 (it would more or less just stay in whatever attitude you left it in), vs. Positive stability in every axis on the Glassair. I could go on and on but the bottom line was that for an USAF pilot trained on supersonic aircraft the Glassair, and I am sure the Lancair IV-p seems extremely easy to "keep up with". But to a guy with 100 hours in nothing more exotic than a 182 (I was once that guy) a Lancair would require serious training and dicipline, in order to fly safely.

A year or two ago I was looking at buying a used Alfa Jet. The Alfa Jetis a trainer and light attack aircraft built by the Germans and French, still used bt France, with high subsonic speed and modern jet trainer like handling, in other words much easier to fly than a T-38 (which is now considered to be one of the most demanding of USAF aircraft (due to very high stall speed and extremely sensitive controls, without benefit of computer aids). I did some checking into accident rates of military jets in civilian hands and at first glance the numbers looked very bad. But if you looked at the number of serious accidents when these same planes were flown by pilots with military jet training, the numers dropped to essentially zero. Military flight training of my erra required many hours of T-37 and T-38 training, in which every second of every flight was prerehersed on the ground, and every single part of the flight was graded precisely according to a standard. There was no Top Gun movie nonsense, no fooling around, everything was done with precision or the pilot trainee quickly was on a flight home. In my class only 1 out of 3 people making it to T-37 training was still around by the time we finished T-38 training, and many more were rejected before ever sitting i the cockpit of a jet.

Again, the point is that we all come from different levels of training and skill, and what might be chalenging to one pilot could seem mundane to another. That commercial'pilot who put his plane down in the Hudson river without losing a single passenger was a stone cold machine when things got dicey, but some guys/girls would freak and crash. As a plane gets faster, more complicated, flys in tougher conditions of in less forgiving, high altitude air, the level of training, skill and diciplin required to fly safely, grows quickly, but the required levels hardly increase at all.
 
Re: It's all in the training and skill and discipline of the pilot

captbilly said:
There was no Top Gun movie nonsense, no fooling around, everything was done with precision or the pilot trainee quickly was on a flight home. In my class only 1 out of 3 people making it to T-37 training was still around by the time we finished T-38 training, and many more were rejected before ever sitting i the cockpit of a jet.

Again, the point is that we all come from different levels of training and skill, and what might be chalenging to one pilot could seem mundane to another. That commercial'pilot who put his plane down in the Hudson river without losing a single passenger was a stone cold machine when things got dicey, but some guys/girls would freak and crash. As a plane gets faster, more complicated, flys in tougher conditions of in less forgiving, high altitude air, the level of training, skill and diciplin required to fly safely, grows quickly, but the required levels hardly increase at all.
Click to expand...


This is what is lacking from the civilian training world, a real "washout" standard. For GA, there really shouldn't be one beyond "safe", but there are a lot of guys in the front of airliners who should have washed out long ago. AF447 is just a recent example, and this is one where all three should have been washed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top