BeechTalk - BT - Lancair IV-p

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 11:44

Username Protected wrote:

Speed brakes on a glider are used religiously because a glider produces so much excess lift. Your Lancair wing does not produce excess lift...

Semantics, but it's because a glider produces so little drag, specifically induced drag prior to touchdown. A glider wing and a Lancair wing both produce enough lift to keep the aircraft up.

Back to airplanes and the use of speedbrakes on final, some VariEze pilots like to use them too (has to do with concerns with off-airport landing survivability; carrying extra energy until final helps ensure "making" the runway and then bleeding it off with a speedbrake helps ensure not overshooting it). Those have a single speedbrake with a simple mechanism (a lot like Johnson bar flaps) so asymmetric deployment isn't an issue.

Disclaimer: I've never flown one myself. It's not a great example but it's a data point. And I'm not trying to argue for or against, just adding it to the discussion.

Cheers, my friends :cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 13:57

So a few suggestions for things for you to try and figure out on you Lancair since you aren't getting the training. The guy that did my training had over 1000 hrs in the IVP in many different serial numbers. So I wouldn't have been impressed with 40 time in type either.
Check how low you can run a tank to ascertain the true usable fuel. Also make sure it restarts after running one dry. In cruise the big prop combined with small vertical can make for an interesting ride when it quits. Not so bad in the piston but has been fatal in the turbine. Tail will pass nose before you have any idea what happened.

Speed brakes before touching down is a bad idea. Too many things to do in a low speed last min go around. Full flaps are enough drag. After touchdown knock yourself out. But won't help braking much. They kill more lift than just plain drag.

Check that you have the brake line upgrade and weep hole. Blown brakes have caused more than one repair job.

Try and do a manual gear extension in flight. Nose gear is only extended by the gas strut when using the hand pump. They get oild and weak.

Calculate your glide. They glide well but speed control is very critical.

Post some engine monitor shots along with your cruise. Would Mike to see what is giving those numbers. Many Lancairs read high TAS. This is usually due to static port install issues. So that effects the altimeter in flight. Careful testing in flight is the only way to determine this and correct the install. They tend to fly in an area of localized lower pressure.

And I wouldn't practice full stalls anymore. The test pilots with the most time in these will tell you some stall great. Except for that one time it made them crap their pants for no reason.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 14:27

Username Protected wrote:

In cruise the big prop combined with small vertical can make for an interesting ride when it quits. Not so bad in the piston but has been fatal in the turbine. Tail will pass nose before you have any idea what happened.

Well, that wouldn't be good. :bugeye:

What's the recovery technique?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 15:32

Username Protected wrote:

So a few suggestions for things for you to try and figure out on you Lancair since you aren't getting the training. The guy that did my training had over 1000 hrs in the IVP in many different serial numbers. So I wouldn't have been impressed with 40 time in type either.
Check how low you can run a tank to ascertain the true usable fuel. Also make sure it restarts after running one dry. In cruise the big prop combined with small vertical can make for an interesting ride when it quits. Not so bad in the piston but has been fatal in the turbine. Tail will pass nose before you have any idea what happened.

Speed brakes before touching down is a bad idea. Too many things to do in a low speed last min go around. Full flaps are enough drag. After touchdown knock yourself out. But won't help braking much. They kill more lift than just plain drag.

Check that you have the brake line upgrade and weep hole. Blown brakes have caused more than one repair job.

Try and do a manual gear extension in flight. Nose gear is only extended by the gas strut when using the hand pump. They get oild and weak.

Calculate your glide. They glide well but speed control is very critical.

Post some engine monitor shots along with your cruise. Would Mike to see what is giving those numbers. Many Lancairs read high TAS. This is usually due to static port install issues. So that effects the altimeter in flight. Careful testing in flight is the only way to determine this and correct the install. They tend to fly inm an area of localized lower pressure.

And I wouldn't practice full stalls anymore. The test pilots with the most time in these will tell you some stall great. Except for that one time it made them crap their pants for no reason.

Thank you, excellent advice! I practiced slowing her up today with a steep approach but managed the energy to 90kts over the fence with full flaps and NO speed brakes until after touch down. I think this approach is the ticket. She floats a bit but I liked the energy and got her stopped in a reasonable distance with light braking. It's really a very easy plane to land well.

Totally agree, the brakes on this airplane are critical, I just replaced mine for piece of mind! Agreed, no stalls. Engine is running very cool at cruise. 260kts LOP with CHTs in the low 300s is practical. The higher numbers were just for fun and the fuel flows and temperatures are not ideal. I've been managing the climb at 165kts and 38 GPH to keep CHTs below 380.

This is definitely a staring at the engine monitor sort of airplane. It's very easy to let the temps get out of control if not paying careful attention to deck angle, speed and fuel flow. Real similar to flying a Piper Malibu I think or even a turbo Baron.

I will test the gear pump down system system.

The bleed air that comes out for pressurization is still pretty toasty. Are they all like this?

Thanks again for the advice.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 15:49

Precise Flight speed brakes on my Columbia.
I use them frequently. Very little effect on Columbia
Below 90 knots. That goes for leaving them deployed
On a go around. The way you are exploring your IV-P you will figure
out the speed brake parameters in your bird.
I have way less experience than you but would like offer this: Any and All exploring
The edge of the envelope should first be done mentally from your favorite chair in your house, hopefully give a pilot you trust VETO power.
From what I have read in this thread from caring pilots I would veto
Future stalls.
BE SAFE HAVE FUN BE SAFE :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 16:09

Username Protected wrote:

You're flying an airplane that will require a lot of power to fly an approach because it has such a little wing. If you have a split deployment while crossing the fence it might not be pretty. Speed brakes on final are a limitation on many jets. Do you land the aircraft with full flaps?

Shawn and others...

The speed brake comparison of the Lancair and other planes may or may not be appropriate. There's many different applications of speed brakes and many limitations and when and when not to use them.

Michael,

You approach to speed brakes is fine... work with them conservatively to see what they do.
Just as a way, there might be a thought to deploy when touching down.... which is a common way to slow a plane and may be the ticket. But applying while still in the air could be a good solution, too.

It's fun to experiment with a plane, but has it's risks. You seem to accept that well.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 16:12

Username Protected wrote:

Denied LOBO (Lancair Owners Bulders Organization) instruction today due to self insuring. I'm totally convinced the Lancair instruction program is to protect the insured people. I am fortunate enough to be able to self insure but was denied "professional" instruction by a 40 hour time in type instructor (I have 30 hours so I question the quality of the instruction regardless). I wanted to reaffirm my confidence in the type but that is obviously not an option or a concern of the LOBO.

Regardless, this was an eye opener. I'm safe and confident flying the airplane but there is no instruction available unless you have insurance. I am also confident enough to say I am qualified and available in this type to provide instruction as needed.

I spend at least $30K a year in premiums insuring things; perhaps I should dump all insurance?

Bryan, any comments on this and your thoughts on "grounding myself"?

Michael,

I find that deplorable that they would turn you down. Tell them that you will protect the instructor with an indemnity agreement or perhaps you could buy a cheap policy for HIM for instruction in your plane. If he has his own insurance he could probably add your plane as a rider (insurance guys?).

Sometimes insurance works counterproductive and that's a shame.

I'm also a fan of self insurance... saves a TON of money and hassle.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 16:58

Username Protected wrote:

seems like a lot of the accidents are in the approach & landing phase so I'd not rate a BRS too useful. I don't think a chute fixes some of the things you see in this very thread: "I'm so good I don't need training or insurance, anyone who says otherwise must be an incompetent fool because that's who needs training, I could TEACH how to fly this thing I'm so good, hey what are these speed brakes they seem to be important but I don't what I'm doing and I'm creating a hazard with them"

You know, I didn't get that impression at all. I've enjoyed reading his experiences and experiments with the plane. It's as if you (and those that liked your post) are threatened/jealous by his expertise and financial capability to be self-insured and are trying to bring him down a notch. It isn't pretty. I'm not sure what makes people on forums and online like this.

More power to you Michael. I'm really enjoying the reports.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 17:25

Michael, check the rigging of the air mixing box. There is a disc that rotates between hot and really hot air. I live in Minnesota and find AC a necessity. For comfort I use it at altitude almost always in the summer. Even at temps of 0c it is needed with the solar heating. In my opinion the scoop AC is best. Sure I'd like to be able to run it on the ground with a cart for precooling, but it's not worth the trade off. As you might have found it gets pitch sensitive quickly when the CG moves aft. The electric adds a lot of weight aft and takes up what little baggage area s there. For my family of 3 the is ample baggage space and the scoop system works great even on the ground while taxiing. Don't really know the speed loss for sure. But in the area of 5-7kts. But at 250kts that isn't going to make any difference except in bragging rights.

Are you familiar with the brake line mod? Didn't look like yours had it.

I usually climb at 35"/2500 and about 29.5gph. 165-170 indicated. Gives 800-1100 rpm depending on weight and temp. Stays cool. Never above 365f.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 18:21

Username Protected wrote:

Michael, check the rigging of the air mixing box. There is a disc that rotates between hot and really hot air. I live in Minnesota and find AC a necessity. For comfort I use it at altitude almost always in the summer. Even at temps of 0c it is needed with the solar heating. In my opinion the scoop AC is best. Sure I'd like to be able to run it on the ground with a cart for precooling, but it's not worth the trade off. As you might have found it gets pitch sensitive quickly when the CG moves aft. The electric adds a lot of weight aft and takes up what little baggage area s there. For my family of 3 the is ample baggage space and the scoop system works great even on the ground while taxiing. Don't really know the speed loss for sure. But in the area of 5-7kts. But at 250kts that isn't going to make any difference except in bragging rights.

Are you familiar with the brake line mod? Didn't look like yours had it.

I usually climb at 35"/2500 and about 29.5gph. 165-170 indicated. Gives 800-1100 rpm depending on weight and temp. Stays cool. Never above 365f.

I think I'm going with the compressor driven AC, better CG distribution and I have a 12V system. It's what Brad Simmons suggested.

What's the brake line mod?

I inspected the cables on the mixer box and all looked good; I'll take some hoses off and inspect to make sure things are closing as needed so that I'm not getting excessive hot air.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 19:07

Brake line mod removes the nylaflo tubing in the gear leg and replaces with stainless. Also adds a fitting at the top where the line has broken before and real hoses to the edge of the landing gear box. Brad will do a good job getting you fixed up.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Aug 2016, 19:13

the brake line mod is a must! Too much at risk to combine cheap plastic line and high dollar airplane that really needs. BRAKES!

It was a pain but I did it in mine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Aug 2016, 12:59

Username Protected wrote:

Denied LOBO (Lancair Owners Bulders Organization) instruction today due to self insuring. I'm totally convinced the Lancair instruction program is to protect the insured people. I am fortunate enough to be able to self insure but was denied "professional" instruction by a 40 hour time in type instructor (I have 30 hours so I question the quality of the instruction regardless). I wanted to reaffirm my confidence in the type but that is obviously not an option or a concern of the LOBO.

Regardless, this was an eye opener. I'm safe and confident flying the airplane but there is no instruction available unless you have insurance. I am also confident enough to say I am qualified and available in this type to provide instruction as needed.

I spend at least $30K a year in premiums insuring things; perhaps I should dump all insurance?

Bryan, any comments on this and your thoughts on "grounding myself"?

Michael,

I find that deplorable that they would turn you down. Tell them that you will protect the instructor with an indemnity agreement or perhaps you could buy a cheap policy for HIM for instruction in your plane. If he has his own insurance he could probably add your plane as a rider (insurance guys?).

Sometimes insurance works counterproductive and that's a shame.

I'm also a fan of self insurance... saves a TON of money and hassle.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Aug 2016, 14:11

Username Protected wrote:

Also if our instructor were to be injured then his medical expenses would be on him.

don't your instructors have health insurance? after all, it is a federal law.

too often I see people blindly following policies that do not make sense. we've lost the ability to do common sense things for the right reason.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Aug 2016, 14:24

I dropped the plane off for a new interior, I'm excited!

I've found the IV to be a great grass field airplane. Granted, the grass field where I'm based is more like a golf course fairway than your typical grass field. The landing gear seems strong enough; it's not Beechcraft strong but it seems fine for smooth grass operation. The grass is excellent at decelerating the airplane with minimal braking. It seems to stop in about 1500-1700 feet and take off in the same giving me a 50% margin.

Most people wouldn't operate a P Baron out of there either but I've figured out a good technique that works. And yes, I have to go around once in a while if I'm not 100% in love with the approach.

I instruct in all sorts of airplanes including ones without insurance. My health insurance would cover medical bills. Not really a concern. Unfortunately, no matter how much insurance you have you're getting sued as an instructor if your in the airplane or your name is in the log book. I'm pretty careful about whose logbook I sign too so I get that.

Jeff, thanks for the note on the brake pads (I think they were worn prior to my taking possession). I'm just glad they are cheap! I'm dropping the plane off at Brad Simmon's shop to get A/C and to double check service bulletins, etc! He's done a cursory inspection and said it's had a lot of updates and was well constructed. If gave me some piece of mind before delving into it in more detail.