Doug Rozendaal said he was afraid of the IV P. That's all I need to know about it.

I think the above mentioned article was in Kit Planes Magazine.

bunch of weenies
where can you find a reasonable priced 4 place a/c pressurized that cruises at 230 kts at 23,000 feet burning 16.g g/hr LOP for 1400 miles for less than 300K?
all it takes is training. You cant fly a IV-P like a 182 or a bo. It will bite if you dont pay attention to speeds and attitude. With a good AOA and someone to instruct on it its as safe as any other airplane.

Correct...All it takes is training.

We taught kids how to fly T-38s with wings as big as your desk. 180kt final turn, and discipline. Unforgiving stall characteristics. It can be done ...repeatedly and safely...with training.

Unfortunately you don't see many training programs that encompass 200 hrs of ground school, 7 tests, 75 hrs of in-flight training and 4 check rides...all in 6 months. (As we did in the T-38).

Yep, anything is possible with training.

Anything less is risky for a hot plane. I'm not saying the IV can't be tamed, but it takes considerable training as speeds and stall speeds go up.

The -IVP is not a practical airplane for a typical GA pilot.... It has Zero tolerance for error. You get behind it and make a mistake, it will kill you... I cant quote the statistic, but something like 30% of them have been in fatal accidents and based on the little bit that I have flown one, I believe it.....

If you believe that you are better than all the rest of the folks who have been killed in them, then knock yourself out, but it has totally non-certifiable handling. A test pilot who flew several of them, told me, "don't ever stall it.... Several of them will tumble in a wings level unaccelerated stall."

There are some fantastic Lancair products, but the -IVP is not one of them..... I have said it before on this forum. I have over 1000 hours in WWII flighters and over 1000 hours in a Rocket which is a pretty hot ride.... If someone gave me a -IVP I would fly it home, and sell it to someone I did not know....

It is not a safe airplane for dependable X/C travel by any typical GA pilot...

If you are Hoot Gibson, maybe, but for the rest of us, the -IVP is not a practical solution.... Remember Drew's Law, 80% of us believe we are in the top 20%.... Rozendaal's corollary says "half of us are below the median....."

The -IVP is for the top 10% and some of them will perish in it..... Clearly my experience is in the top 10%, but my skill level is closer to the middle of the bell curve... I would love to go 240 KTAS in pressurized comfort, but I'll pass, I'm just not that good....

And BTW, yes, I am a weenie.... And further, your Evolution is a fantastic airplane.....

Lancair IVP insurance isn't cheap. $9500 is the cheapest I've heard. $250k hull. Air conditioning works great, fast and cheap to operate. A/C isn't only for ground cooling. It keeps the air dryer at altitude and the Windows don't fog on the side not in the sun. I run it all the time. Even with heat. Just on low when needed for drying. If you have never had pressurization on a long flight you don't know what you are missing. I'm a real cheap ass on fuel and run way LOP. 240ktas at 15.9gph 17000'. 74 gal and 4:22 from KANE to KECP earlier this month. It will do 275kts at fl240 at about 22gph. But I like the upper teens. No one flys there.
As far as handling roll is really nice but pitch is sensitive. But it is still stable. 95-100kts over the fence. I have no problems on a 2800' runway I use around here loaded full. Useful load is not a problem. Passengers big enough to put it over just aren't going to want to fly in it anyways. I'm 5'10" about 180 and I find it has plenty of room.

Stay away from the turbo props though. They are cool but have additional problems that aren't worth the trade off.

Most reports of how they fly horrible are second hand. There aren't enough IV-P aircraft
out there to support so many first hand opinions. The accident rate isn't stellar. But do some research and look at each one individually. Icing with no deice, TS, fuel exhaustion, and stall spin make up the majority. Highest accident rate is actually new owner on first flight home without any instruction. 46% of the accidents are pilots with less than 100hrs in type. 47accidents total last time I looked. But about 50% had at least one fatality. I agree that's not a good ratio. But good training really is the key. In most of the fatal accidents the pilot never got training and or recurrent. And most all insurances require it. Hey, I'm a high time pilot, I don't need the instruction..... BTW I have 8000+ and got some invaluable instruction from a really great guy. Not sure who Brian had talked to but the guys I did were all really nice and knowledgable. But I'm sure there others out there too.

The ES-P is awesome too. Better slow flying handling with that wing. But you are comparing 108sf vs 140sf wing area. And on either, as Brian can attest the avionics options rule. Wish I had the g3x. Someday when I have more time.

I just suggest flying them before dismissing. You'll either love it or hate it. We love it.

I have about 250 hours in a the IV-P so far. The are fantastic airplanes. However, it's not even close to the same class of aircraft as your A36. They both have 1 engine and a propeller, and that's where the similarities end.

My IV-P rules:

VMC only. Not to say I won't climb or descend through an occasional couple thousand foot thick cloud deck, but I will absolutely not hang out in IMC, no flights with weather low enough to even potentially require flying an instrument approach. I stay very far away from the freezing levels and thunderstorms.

Nobody in the rear seat EVER, and right seat passengers chosen carefully. So far that has only been other pilots who I made aware of the nature of the aircraft so they can understand the risk. This is not a plane you want to fly heavy.

I always thought the FAA with their minimum stall speed requirements for single engine planes was curbing development of fast airplanes, taking the fun out of it for us. But I will tell you, after flying the IV a bunch, well, it's not such a bad certification requirement. The problem with the IV is the very high stall speed, combined with an engine working way harder than it should (Get used to seeing CHTs well in the 400s), and a lightly built plastic airframe. You will probably survive a forced landing in your robust, fat, and slow A36. You will not survive a forced landing in a IV.

Insurance for my LearJet as an owner-pilot with an 8 figure liability policy and full hull coverage is almost half the price of the bare bones $1m/100k LIABILITY ONLY insurance on the IV-P, if that tells you anything.

If you understand what the IV actually is, it's very rewarding and an absolute blast to fly. I see true airspeeds of 280 knots in low 20s sipping on 19GPH. However, it's not a plane you can load your family and bags in and fly off to somewhere for the weekend. I also could not recommend this airplane to any pilot who doesn't have tactical jet experience. If you really want to buy a IV-P, I would recommend you first buy an L39 and fly it for about 50 hours or so. That will start to prepare you for the IV.

400+ CHT? You better get that looked at. See my picture above. A long way from 400. Climb I might see 360. I see 350 if I push it hard in cruise. Not sure what your leAr insurance is but my Lancair is 9500 per year full coverage. Liability only is $3200. So I think $1600 for your Lear is a great deal maybe I misread your post or something.
No problems loading it up heavy and climbing 165kias and 900fpm climb. But yes it definitely will not handle as nicely as any Bo. And stay far far far away from ice. And it isn't a plane for a low time pilot. Or with little high performance time. 160kt singles don't count.
ES is definitely a better handling safer plane. Add a BRS and its like a pressurized cirrus. A little faster because fuselage is smaller.
My engine is babied at 240kts as you can see.

Would a M20S, Mooney Acclaim, work? 210-220kts everyday, AC, certified, TKS available, four seat when wanted. Can go in the FL but is great lower. Great bird and stable... Fly safe.

a great deal to think about. probably time to fly one. thank you all :

If the insurance companies say unanimously that weenies in this case have a higher life expectancy, then I'll gladly be one, as much as I drool over the performance numbers or the IV-P.

- Martin

Does an AOA indicator help manage the risk?

Yes and no - more no than yes. The AOA itself doesn't change the stall characteristics of the aircraft. It might of course help with getting into a stall in the first place. The main issue with the IVP and IVP turbine is that there are a TON of fatal losses and an extremely small premium 'pool'. So insurers are having to put premium levels on these aircraft which in some cases are double or triple what one might find in a single-engine TP of the same hull value. As it stands some insurers have an upside down loss ratio on these aircraft which is why we have seen several exit the market over the last couple of years specific to this model. There currently are only a couple of markets which will even look at a IVP and/or IVP turbine.

The only thing that helps the premium 'pool' is more premium (ie more units flying paying premiums) and no more or reduced losses over time.

Yes and no - more no than yes. The AOA itself doesn't change the stall characteristics of the aircraft. It might of course help with getting into a stall in the first place. The main issue with the IVP and IVP turbine is that there are a TON of fatal losses and an extremely small premium 'pool'. So insurers are having to put premium levels on these aircraft which in some cases are double or more what one might find in a single-engine TP of the same hull value. As it stands some insurers have an upside down loss ratio on these aircraft which is why we have seen several exit the market over the last couple of years specific to this model. There currently are only a couple of markets which will even look at a IVP and/or IVP turbine.

The only thing that helps the premium 'pool' is more premium (ie more units flying paying premiums) and no more or reduced losses over time.

Seems like I have been reading about a lot of approach accidents where the speed was unstable while configuring. It would seem that training to watch the speed and maybe a low speed alarm on approach would go along way toward fixing the issues.

There were also the some hull loss accidents that weren't the airplane's fault. The one where the gear failed to extend and they crashed while working the gear issue.