That looks like a nice plane and great performance. I have to be in the camp of it being a little bit of a Rattle snake though. All is great until it isn't. Fly it like a jet and pay attention to those airspeeds. Don't even think of looking at ice in it, and don't be fooled that it won't bite if you turn your back on it. It could never be certified for good reason. I am guessing that if you put it through a full stall regimen like required for certification you better have a chute on you or the plane. But can't deny that is some great performance. Fly safe

I learned to fly in a Swift and heard the stories after the fact, stalls and spins were never an issue, taxiing got my attention after flying cubs, with the springs to the tailwheel there was quite a bit of lag after input, not getting into the whole story it got my attention and no aircraft were damaged.

Having a bit of trouble correlating these two quotes...

Hell of an image seared into my mind before hitting the sack tonight. some stuff you just can't "unread".

Hysterical Rocky.

These airplanes are not insurable. Something to keep in mind.

I can tell you exactly why people have a cirrus over a Lancair IVP

Lancair no longer builds the IVP, the molds are breaking down, saw the writing on the walls with my 360.

Both Beech and Cirrus have factory support, granted expensive but at least still there.

They cost a huge amount insure compared to Cirrus or Beech.

They don't have as good low speed handling qualities as the Cirrus or Bonanza.

Some don't trust an airplane built in someones garage that goes 300mph and is pressurized.

The Cirrus has the parachute, sure you can put it in, and lose what little baggage you had.

The Bonanza has the room to haul stuff, try fitting camping gear for four people in a Lancair IVP.

They don't have as much room, good for small people but people don't like to be cramped no matter what the speed.

Lets not talk about the safety numbers, doing stalls is all well and good but when the engine quits and its game on, the numbers are not good.

All that to save about half an hour on a 500nm trip.... comparing SR22T or A36TN to Lancair IVP.

Not hating on Lancairs. I used to own one, they're beautiful, just not practical for anyone needing to move more than two people...

......and he will also tell you that it's a slippery sucker that you have to pay real attention to and not fly it outside the numbers.

I'm a bit concerned with any new pilot of a IV-P saying his is special and the stall is straight, even the factory test pilots would do maneuvers at 8-10k AGL and some said recovery could take 2-3k feet- different configurations and stall entry, as well as cg/loading will give different results, 100-120deg rolls to the inverted attitude are not uncommon

Stalling in pattern entry will be fatal as many have proven, usually with two in the backseat- something to consider as well

I love lancairs. congrats!

Michael,

Congratulations on your new airplane! I am sure you are going to enjoy it immensely.

I'm glad you made some of the comments you have in this thread defending the plane and debunking the "lies" about it. That has proven useful in bringing back comments about the type's safety record and problematic aeronautical issues on examples other than yours. It has allowed Doug Ranz's (who I respect tremendously) comments on it to be resurfaced as well.

This sure looks like a great airplane for you but the discussion reminds why its not for everyone else. Enjoy!

The IV P is a hot plane, but as mentioned, not for everyone, and certainly not a very popular plane.

All planes are compromises... so it depends on what meets the mission.

I've known three people that owned the IV P.... one guy only built it and sold it... the other two were killed in theres. YMMV.

Michael, you seems to have a plane for all missions so it's understandable why you would want one, but... be VERY careful with yours. Hopefully, you'll fly it until you get tired of it and we'll read about your next purchase.

Having a bit of trouble correlating these two quotes...

The 76 year old owner/builder went through this with me otherwise I wouldn't have dreamed stalling it because I read these test pilot reports too. I think there is a HUGE difference in build qualities but I got lucky and mine has a very benign stall. I'll take that luck.

I'm not saying I'm Chuck Yeager here, I'm just saying this particular serial number flies great and I was trying to debunk some of these myths that condemn the entire species. I think it's an unfair condemnation.

MU-2s, Bonanzas and Cirri had lots of accidents too until they realized the problem was training. Unfortunately, for experimentals, there are not enough copies to have such a revelation and then formalize a training program. With a proper type rating course, I think the accident rate would decrease to normal.

I have rules for this particular plane that include no IFR, no ICE, no night and 2 people. It's not a perfect airplane (either is a Bonanza or Baron) that fills all missions. But for hauling 2 people around FAST and comfortably a long distance in decent weather, this is my perfect airplane. ALL airplanes are just fast enough to kill you.

With that range and high altitude capability, how will you avoid ice?

Every once in a while in the 20s, even a whispy little cloud turns me into a popsicle. Will you just stay out of all clouds up high?

I think that's my strategy, simply stay out of the clouds. Day VFR weather. I did the same with the Eclipse and it worked great. At least I don't have to worry about by avionics flipping out in the Lancair! I stay current on instruments and enjoy the academics of it but do not enjoy flying any airplane in bad weather or at night anymore. I used to actively seek challenging conditions; perhaps I am maturing (slightly).