I’ve read of various performance numbers from Lancair 320/360 pilots. One in a 320 has claimed to cruise at 200 kts on 7 gph, which is pretty good. But in an ad on Barnstormers the seller of a 360 claims 180 kts at 8.5 gph. And this is an RG with an IO-360 (fuel injected), so unless he was referring to indicated airspeed, then that performance is only marginally better than a Vans RV. Another 360 owner claims 225 mph (195ish kts) at 7,500 ft, and 255 mph at WOT, though he didn’t mention fuel consumption. Can the cruising speed and fuel economy vary greatly on the build quality of the 320/360’s? I also realize that cruising altitude plays a big part on fuel efficiency by leaning the engine. But some of the performance numbers I read about regarding Lancairs seem pretty abysmal.
Typical cruise speed & fuel burn for Lancair 320 & 360?
- Thread starter DMD3.
- Start date
Grum.Man
En-Route
There are a LOT of variables that play into these claims. Was the Pitot system actually calibrated, are they using GPS averages, what altitude, how clean is the build, what percent power setting do they consider "cruise". There is a reason the experimental missiles have gone extent and RV's have taken over. It takes a lot more power, money, effort to push past the 200kt boundary as well as many negative side effects.
I currently own 2 Lancairs; one is a 235 with an x-340 (188hp on dyno) and the other is a 360 with an io-360 (200 hp rated). The 235 typical cruise is 180 kts, the 360 is 195-200 kts typical. On a 280 nm trip I commonly do the 235 burns 18 gal, the 360 burns 14 gal; the difference here is partially due to more speed but mostly due to the 360's ability to run lean of peak being injected.
A speed claim of 255 mph = 221 kts. That is atypical for a 360 but not impossible. My 360 was based at Reno Stead for 15 years and was setup to race. The seller said it did 220 kts when he bought it but would overheat unless it was doing 150 kts plus because they cowled it tight, had small air cooling vents, etc. He modified it to allow much larger air vents, 2 oil coolers, etc. Now it runs cool in all conditions regardless of ambient, rate of climb, etc.
The 360's are slightly larger and significantly heavier than the 235's. My 360 is 350 lbs heavier than my 235. My wife says my 360 is like a fat kid running after an ice cream truck on takeoff compared to the 235. It's true, my 235 with that 340 and electric MT prop takes off like a hot rod in comparison.
My 235 has a "parallelogram" canopy; I believe all 360's have the forward hinge canopy. Most prefer the forward hinge; I prefer the parallelogram as I can open both clamps on one side and have blast air run through the cockpit during warm ground operations.
The 235's are a hidden bargain in the Lancair fleet. They are considerably less expensive than the 360's and offer most of the performance, or in some regimes significantly better as stated previously regarding takeoff and initial climb. My 235/340 is for sale.
Regarding specific fuel consumption numbers, 200 kts on 7 gph is optimistic and likely a slight exaggeration unless at or above 12k perhaps. My 360 can do 200 kts on about 8-8.5 gph at 10k.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
If they are that horrible, which comparable a/c show better performance numbers?
180 kts at 8.5 isn’t great for a 360. 200+ kts is.
I'm afraid to ask what you think about the performance #'s for those of us who are burning 10gph for 135kts
!- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,770
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
And I'm flat out ashamed to mention 135 knots on 12.5 gphI'm afraid to ask what you think about the performance #'s for those of us who are burning 10gph for 135kts
Grum.Man
En-Route
I'd say that's pretty fantastic. In the real world an RV with a 360 isn't cruising at 180kts period and certainly at no where close to 8.5. I fly pretty regularly along side a very clean 360 constant speed RV7 and he is typically 170kt on 11 at 4-5k feet. So to go 10 kts faster on over 2 gph less is a pretty big deal.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,324
- Location
- The independent worm saloon
- Display Name
- Mantis Toboggan, MD
I'm afraid to ask what you think about the performance #'s for those of us who are burning 10gph for 135kts
If either of you are getting those numbers in a Lancair 360 then you have an issue.
Nauga,
180 at ~10.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
RVs are slower, but they're roomier. They also stall much slower, which is favorable. The market prices (for Rvs) and insurance (for Lancs) reflect that. There's 99 things you could say as detractions for lancs, but gas mileage is just not one of them. This is what they do, compared to the other two (Glas/RVs). In my experience, it's the RVers the one most commonly overstating their speed tops, while dismissing the very "build differentials" that they pin on Lancs when the latter claim outlier speeds.
Last edited:
P28R, not a Lancair... I was just sort of giggling at the idea of 180kts at 8.5gph being considered "bad".
Only way I'm reaching those speeds in my bird are max throttle, in a dive, while dealing with an all consuming cabin emergency.
But you have a couple of extra seats. Aren't Lancairs 2-place?I'm afraid to ask what you think about the performance #'s for those of us who are burning 10gph for 135kts
indeed (I was just joking w/my post cuz I'd love to have those extra knots!)
If you count knots per seat, I think you might be ahead.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,324
- Location
- The independent worm saloon
- Display Name
- Mantis Toboggan, MD
For him it might be, but he's still going to ask you to carry all his stuff.
Nauga,
space-A
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Its kind of like the triangle relationship for maintenance - you can have it fast, cheap, or good. You can only pick two.
For an airplane it can be fast, comfortable, or cheap - pick two. The Lancair will go fast on lower fuel burns, but there isn't much room in it.
For an airplane it can be fast, comfortable, or cheap - pick two. The Lancair will go fast on lower fuel burns, but there isn't much room in it.
With all the time and money you'll be saving, you can get to your destination first and then buy the toothbrushes and underwear that wouldn't fit in your plane.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I can haul four a$$es in my Lancair IV, but not four fat a$$es lol!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
In your -4? With a -320 and a FP prop, or am I remembering wrong?
180 knots is pretty fast at 10 GPH, regardless.
*Ahem*
We prefer the phrase "gravitationally enhanced"
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,324
- Location
- The independent worm saloon
- Display Name
- Mantis Toboggan, MD
160hp, a 3-blade Catto and the airplane is pretty light. It *is* fast, but it's probably more than 10gph since I'm more than happy to run it hard when I want to go fast. I don't have fuel flow instrumented, I just use 10gph as an estimate for everything
Nauga,
who draws the curve then plots the data
hindsight2020
Final Approach
You joke, as a long time Talon driver, that isn't sarcasm in the least. BTDT. When you make it to AFW... but your underwear and cargo shorts (you know, formal wear...) diverted to DYS because *Cargo ship Johnny is a clown. The Sport of Kings come with sacrifices.
*in mil training parlance, cross countries launch as a wave and peel off everywhere for instrument training, then RTB to a central overnight. Only one (sometimes two) fitted with travel pod, carrying the lion's share of people's stuff. Travel pod has limitations (often exceeded/overlooked by cargo ship johnny, because he is a graping clown), so nobody wants to fly it. Cargo ship johnny ends up taking it. Cargo ship johnny, who lacks SA most of the week, often magically finds his own arse only when the weather drops below 2000AGL, leaving everybody to raid the gas station at 2200 for sundries and whatever flip flops you can stomach heading downtown. Cargo ship Johnny is a clown.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 8,868
- Location
- Atlanta / Marietta
- Display Name
- Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
- Home Airfield
- KPUJ
My SUV with wings Skylane is 135 kts TAS at 14 gph.I'm afraid to ask what you think about the performance #'s for those of us who are burning 10gph for 135kts
AA5Bman
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 967
- Display Name
- He who ironically no longer flies an AA5B
I'm afraid to ask what you think about the performance #'s for those of us who are burning 10gph for 135kts
Y'all haven't lived until you've burned 18gph to go 135 knots like in my turbo 206. When I upgrade to a Beaver I'll have to come back and update this post.