08 Jun 2025, 01:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lancair Question?  Posted: 08 Jul 2015, 10:09 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/14
Posts: 2099
Post Likes: +1569
Location: Huntington Beach, CA (KFUL)
Aircraft: 1971 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was one of the first engineers on the Columbia program when the goal was to simply certify the ES and make it easier to build in a factory. After a thorough Part 23 flight test evaluation, it was quickly decided that a complete redesign was needed to make it meet the certification requirements for handling and low-speed behavior. The Columbia looks very similar to an ES but shares no common parts, and especially from the aero configuration/design standpoint.
Read into that what you want but there is huge difference between the two planes. Scott, I noticed you fly a Mooney, but you have great experience with Lancair / Columbia. Any thoughts you'd be willing to share about owning or flying a Mooney 201 VS the others?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lancair Question? Posted: 08 Jul 2015, 10:40 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6410
Post Likes: +5145
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was one of the first engineers on the Columbia program when the goal was to simply certify the ES and make it easier to build in a factory. After a thorough Part 23 flight test evaluation, it was quickly decided that a complete redesign was needed to make it meet the certification requirements for handling and low-speed behavior. The Columbia looks very similar to an ES but shares no common parts, and especially from the aero configuration/design standpoint.
Read into that what you want but there is huge difference between the two planes. Scott, I noticed you fly a Mooney, but you have great experience with Lancair / Columbia. Any thoughts you'd be willing to share about owning or flying a Mooney 201 VS the others?
i bet his legs are cramped less in the non-mooney planes  and he never has a gear up
curious to hear what he says
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lancair Question? Posted: 08 Jul 2015, 16:28 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2281
Post Likes: +706
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was one of the first engineers on the Columbia program when the goal was to simply certify the ES and make it easier to build in a factory. After a thorough Part 23 flight test evaluation, it was quickly decided that a complete redesign was needed to make it meet the certification requirements for handling and low-speed behavior. The Columbia looks very similar to an ES but shares no common parts, and especially from the aero configuration/design standpoint.
Read into that what you want but there is huge difference between the two planes. Scott, I noticed you fly a Mooney, but you have great experience with Lancair / Columbia. Any thoughts you'd be willing to share about owning or flying a Mooney 201 VS the others?
Actually much to Brian's chagrin I'm *very* comfortable in my Mooney! I like the sports car seating position and my long legs can rest comfortably in the foot wells.  I'm not a skinny guy either, although trying to get back closer to that description.
I wish I had more experience with the Lancairs and Columbias, but unfortunately I don't. I did work on the what became the Columbia program in 1995 when it was just starting as an engineering intern, and then full-time after I graduated in May 1996. In '95 I was the 3rd engineer (even as an intern) on the program and was there for the initial design & lofting immediately after the ES was deemed to be un-certifiable. I left the company in early '97 though after they started doing some things that I didn't agree with, and I couldn't change any minds. I still like the plane, though, even if it did get fat during certification and lost a bunch of the useful load. In the early part of the program we were looking at Mooney Ovation cruise speeds with almost 1400 lbs of useful load, while hanging the gear out. I think they ended up with only 1000-1100 lbs of useful load by the time it hit the market, though, so that decreases the utility quite a bit IMO. My 201 has 1025 lbs of useful load, but with 9 GPH in normal cruise I can carry 4 non-obese adults and weekend bags on a 500 NM IFR trip. With the higher fuel burns on the IO-550 planes that is much more difficult to achieve unless you throttle way back, which few of us want to do. (The IO-550 powered Mooney Ovation has a similar issue.)
Regarding my choice to own a 201 vs. something else... it came down to budget of course when I purchased 8.5 years ago. The 201 hits the sweet spot for a personal XC machine in terms of acquisition and operating cost. I think few can match the economics in the certified world, and I continue to be very, very happy with the plane. At the time, Columbias and Cirruses were simply out of my reach. I also think the operating costs are a lot higher, but I don't have direct experience. As I mentioned above, Mooneys have a sports-car seating position in the front and some folks consider it cramped. I've flown (solo) up to 6 hours at a stretch and have no issues whatsoever. I've flown 4 hour trips with the wife, and 3 hours 4-up. My interior was refreshed by the prior owner so I have good modern seat foam and that certainly helps. I have a newer set of seats waiting for me to re-build and install, and I plan to make them like a modern BMW or Mercedes and I'm sure I'll like my plane even more with those installed.
If I had to do it all over again today, I believe I would still choose a 201. I don't have the budget to step up to something else right now that would give me a measurable improvement in either speed or load-carrying ability. The next step up costs quite a bit more in purchase and/or operating cost. I would love a TN A36, but I don't have the need frankly, much less the budget. I'm exploring making my 201 a TN and will hopefully go that route within the next year, and then I'll love my plane even more.  I've got some time in a V-Tail that I enjoyed, but I'm not sure it would make any more or less sense than a 201 for me. I'm sure I would be happy with one, though, so long as I could travel 4-up on a weekend trip. A steam gauge SR22 or Columbia might enter my debate if the acquisition cost is down to my level. I'm not fond of the G1000 closed system and fear getting "stuck" as an owner in such a plane. If I were gifted a Lancair IV I would sell it or re-gift it as fast as I could. An ES might be intriguing... it is much safer IMO than a IV, but less so than a Columbia/TTx from a handling qualities perspective. I would love the flexibility of a 4-seat experimental, though. Brian's ES looks STUNNING for example. I'm envious of the development and optimization he has been able to do with it. I have done and continue to do a lot of upgrading on my early 201, but of course have to work within the regs.
That is a lot of rambling and hope it helps shed some light on the debate from a long-ago insider's perspective. At the time I thought it would be the Columbia that would become the modern success story, and not Cirrus. (I worked there as an intern as well for 8 months in '94) I was happy when Cessna bought the Columbia line and thought they could fix the warts and make it a success...that is still TBD after they made the bad decision to move fab to Mexico. I still hope it gets refined and developed into an even better airplane. I hope I can afford one someday too. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lancair Question? Posted: 08 Jul 2015, 16:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2281
Post Likes: +706
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
|
|
Username Protected wrote: i bet his legs are cramped less in the non-mooney planes and he never has a gear up curious to hear what he says Forgot to mention I have NOT had a gear-up yet. /knocking on wood. Many years ago when I was taking my plane to MN for an expert fuel tank strip-n-seal, my electric gear failed to go down. Fortunately my emergency extension system worked exactly as designed and I made an uneventful landing after a go-around. Turns out the 31 year old gear motor was worn out, and an easy overhaul was all that was needed. I'm still a big fan of the Mooney Johnson bar gear and pump-down hydraulic flaps. I wish I had those systems instead of electric in my 201, but by that time the manual systems were not available. They are simpler and lighter...which appeals to my engineering sensibilities as well as quest for maximum useful load/utility.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lancair Question? Posted: 08 Jul 2015, 22:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6410
Post Likes: +5145
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Forgot to mention I have NOT had a gear-up yet. /knocking on wood.
Many years ago when I was taking my plane to MN for an expert fuel tank strip-n-seal, my electric gear failed to go down. Fortunately my emergency extension system worked exactly as designed and I made an uneventful landing after a go-around. Turns out the 31 year old gear motor was worn out, and an easy overhaul was all that was needed.
I'm still a big fan of the Mooney Johnson bar gear and pump-down hydraulic flaps. I wish I had those systems instead of electric in my 201, but by that time the manual systems were not available. They are simpler and lighter...which appeals to my engineering sensibilities as well as quest for maximum useful load/utility.
my comments were light hearted and half serious, i looked at a rental fleet 201 and after sitting in it, looking at the gear design, and looking at the overall layout of the plane, i walked away before investing any training time to get current in it, okay the failed mag check and instructor asking me if i still wanted to do some pattern work really made me think twice, ridiculous! glad to see you are enjoying yours, and i can only give you big thumbs up for the TN kit, you will not regret it
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Lancair Question? Posted: 15 Jul 2015, 15:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6410
Post Likes: +5145
|
|
i thought this was a good pic to share, a similar color scheme cirrus was on the ramp next to me, so it took the side by side, lets you compare the lancair to the cirrus, i'm bias as you can imagine, but the lancair just looks much sexier to me Attachment: 2015-04-20 12.58.39.jpg
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
