Mentioning that you wanted to do your training on a grass strip would have really shed some light as to why LOBO denied you flight instruction. Usually when someone flames an organization there is always something more that doesn't come to light until that said organization defends itself. I would not give initial flight instruction to a guy i've never met, in an airplane like that, on a grass strip i've probably never been to. That is just CYA 101. The Lancair will perform on a grass strip. Here are three Lancairs at my dads hangar, which was on a grass strip. I grew up around Lancairs. They perform just fine grass, but i'm just not doing initial training on it. This flying thing is about risk management and mitigation, not need to stand in front of the train to increase your chances.

Shawn, the Lancair in front has a completely different gear architecture and weight, the IVP is 2900-3400lbs on most missions, it uses a standard 6x6 tire on a rear folding fuselage gear on rather long legs

EDIT: i examined the picture closer and see a few IV's in background, so let's stick to that

several IV/IVP's have had fatal outcomes due to landing gear issues, and it's a known weak point in the airframe (of course, not when maintained properly, flown and operated within the specified limits, on the recommended airstrips and inspected regularly)

You've got the president of LOBO here saying, that after examining and investigating with a team of dedicated pilots and instructors each and every Lancair involved incident over the history of the fleet, that grass strips and IV/IVP retract gears don't mix, and you have someone willing to argue against that point with what, 30-40hrs now?

Not sure the grass field would make for a fatal landing gear situation, but there have been more than one nose gear failure and engine mount being bent due to grass. One was during taxi. A lot of weight out there.

The grass runway I live on is significantly smoother than most paved runways I've been to. There is not a more forgiving surface for an airplane to land on than a nice grass runway. I'm not talking your typical cow pasture field.

With this in mind, I will agree that I would NOT take a Lancair into 99.9% of grass runways.

But, there's an exception for everything. This is a million+ dollar engineered grass runway that was laser leveled with multiple layers of material. You could land here after 6 inches of rain and not sink in.

If it doesn't tear the landing gear off my model airplanes (including 30lb turbine jets with 3 inch wheels on retractable undercarriage held in by wood screws), it's not going to rip the gear off a Lancair.

Ill agree, prolonged operation on a grass strip for Lancairs is not the best idea. True, not all grass strips are the same, but prolonged operations will have negative effect. These airplanes were not based on this grass strip but simply in for maintenance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Hw7SWCxF8

2 inch nose wheel.

This has nothing to do with the conversation but enjoy the entertainment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQgg7k13ZSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14DyBpY ... verified=1

fair enough, i should have reworded that- with the landing speeds of the IV/IVP, you want the gear working as intended

on the other hand, sometimes 2 feet isn't enough.

This nose gear is not collapsed, it's right where it's supposed to be

Looks really stout

[youtube]https://youtu.be/a6M3A4ImsjQ[/youtube]

"jetdoctr8 years ago
yes the aircraft was repaired and is currently flying great, for the cause of the incident. it was a combination of failed internals in the locking pins in the landing gear box, innaccurate hydraulic pressure readings, lack of wight on the gear from not having the wings on, and operator discression - for which he paid for out of his own pocket to repair. aircraft resides in canada with over 80 flight hours on it currently.... as for me... I was there when it happened"

is this statement intended to offer some sort of reassurance?

"jetdoctr8 years ago
yes the aircraft was repaired and is currently flying great, for the cause of the incident. it was a combination of failed internals in the locking pins in the landing gear box, innaccurate hydraulic pressure readings, lack of wight on the gear from not having the wings on, and operator discression - for which he paid for out of his own pocket to repair. aircraft resides in canada with over 80 flight hours on it currently.... as for me... I was there when it happened"

[quote="Brian Thompson"

yeah, i completely challenge that, you can watch that right main gear literally bend to failure from the torque/pressure placed on it while the brake struggles to hold the tire against the pavement.....looks like it was locked and they exceeded the load limits of the entire structure- perhaps due to the lack of wings, but that gear is being bent to failure[/quote][/quote]

My quote was from a YouTube comment that claims he was there. I think the gear is strong enough, this looks like a bizarre exception. But if something like this occurs I will remove the valuable parts and roast marshmallows over the fire