Landing your Eclipse on your grass strip would be a violation of the aircraft limitations for landing surface and also a violation of the aircraft limitations for runway length.

Aside from that, it might have been great. And then again, maybe not. Here's what another fellow did to his Eclipse when he decided to land in violation of the published runway length limitation:



It took you until "the last moment" to reconsider a landing attempt in violation of two different aircraft limitations?

Ken

Great question!! RDD makes the most beautiful Lancairs I've seen, true artists. I don't know if there's a market for $600K Lancair IVs?

I am going to study the gear system and see if I can get someone to engineer something. I have Version 2.0 nose gear and apparently version 1.0 was really bad. I feel the main gear is pretty stout and nose gear is fine in the vertical dimension but could use an additional brace in the lateral axis. I am listening to those that know more about this airplane than me.

Landing gears are the weakest spot on any airplane, they are all a compromise. The Searey also has a crappy gear system with this incredibly goofy cable that extends the tailwheel. If it falls off a pulley it jams up the left gear.

You lose people you know and care about and it is very worth being "prickly" to not lose any more.

Speed brakes on a long body Mooney help a lot in gusty crosswind landings, though.

You lose people you know and care about and it is very worth being "prickly" to not lose any more.

I know that Lancair's get a bad rep for safety - so do light twins - but I still love my Baron.
Im guessing, as reflected in Tarver's posts too, that the bad rep comes from pilots being in over their head on the airplane. Just like doctors in V-Tails, inexperienced pilots in Cirrus, Commanders or whatever - multiple examples down the years...

I have always been a fan of the unbelievable performance of the IV-P. I have really enjoyed reading this thread. Not to get off topic but does the new Evolutions have gear issues?

No, I believe they engineered many the Lancair quirks out with the Evolution.

Ken, what are you talking about? Apples and orange. What you brought up has no relevance here. The pilot you referenced did not simply have disregard for some published limitation (a limitation like the AFM approved surfaces, which is just because of lack of data). He could have landed there just fine and legal if he wasn't ref plus 40 knots on final, 1000 feet high over the fence, and touched down halfway down the runway still way over ref. That was awful piloting, plain and simple. Maybe you think that's okay though, after all, it IS how most Eclipse pilots like to fly- Hey, they might be coming in really fast, but at least they are high!

Ken, what are you talking about? Apples and orange. What you brought up has no relevance here. The pilot you referenced did not simply have disregard for some published limitation (a limitation like the AFM approved surfaces, which is just because of lack of data). He could have landed there just fine and legal if he wasn't ref plus 40 knots on final, 1000 feet high over the fence, and touched down halfway down the runway still way over ref. That was awful piloting, plain and simple. Maybe you think that's okay though, after all, it IS how most Eclipse pilots like to fly- Hey, they might be coming in really fast, but at least they are high!

Gosh, Ted, you've forgotten your Eclipse limitations. The Eclipse has the following landing weight limitation:

Landing Weight is limited by the most restrictive of the following:
Maximum Certified Landing Weight .......................5,600 lbs (2,540 kg)
Landing Distance (Refer to Section 5, Landing Performance, Landing
Distance from 50 ft Tables and Corrections.)

For a landing to be legal, it has to be at or below the weight that generates a required landing distance shorter than the usable runway length. Well, Brandywine Rwy 27 has 3097 feet of usable runway. And the aircraft, at the weight it was at the time of landing, required 3157 feet of usable runway:



Not only did he have no cushion on his landing distance; it was a landing in violation of the aircraft limitations. So, no; you're not correct when you assert that the landing would have been fine and legal if he'd just come in a little lower and slower; that landing was not within the limitations of the aircraft.


He was *not* 40 knots fast on final and 1000 feet AGL over the fence. The Eclipse has a marvelous data recording system, and accordingly his exact flight path and speed are known:



He was fast, but in fact, just 15 knots over Vref, not 40 knots, and he crossed the threshold at less than 31 feet AGL.


You can see from the diagram, he wasn't anywhere near halfway down the runway when weight-on-wheels occurred. The data unit showed he touched down at 92 knots, which is *below* Vref, not "way over Vref."

Your opinions about the cause of the accident are just not borne out by the known facts. And I suspect that your suggestion that most Eclipse pilots fly fast and high approaching a runway is also unsupported, but I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing any factual data you have to back that assertion.

Ken

15 over VREF is grounds for going around, any airplane would have run off the end under these circumstances.

The manual encourages high and fast approaches such as ref+10 over the fence then Ref and also all numbers are predicted on landing 1000 feet down the runway. So yes, if you fly by the book you are flying high and fast on approach.

I don't agree with the book and prefer to hold REF and put the airplane on the numbers. Saves brakes,tires and runway. Also lessens the risk of an over run and opens up plenty more airports for use.

if this technique works for virtually all other airplanes it's logical to assume the Eclipse method of encouraging floating 1000 feet down the runway is the odd man out.

Last thing I'll add is that an airplane landing is by definition stalling while touching the ground. So if you are actually touching down at Ref speed you touching down at 20kts over stall, that Eclipse still wants to fly and the braking will be minimal at that speed. Also very bad technique.

Mike, sorry, but you're remembering your Eclipse days incorrectly. The manual calls for Vref on final:




That's not unique to the Eclipse. Every plane is certificated on the basis of crossing the threshold at 50 feet and following approximately a 3 degree glidepath, which inevitably means touching down at about 1000 feet down the runway. That's not Eclipse-specific at all; as a CFI, I suspect you know all that.

I'm not suggesting that it wasn't pilot error at Brandywine. He attempted a landing at a runway too short for the aircraft's current weight, violating an aircraft limitation. Then he came in too fast, though not nearly as fast as Ted said. The result was predictable.

What I am suggesting is that Ted's comments on the cause of the accident were wildly inaccurate. IMHO his assertion that most Eclipse pilots land the plane incorrectly is also inaccurate, but we'll see what, if anything, he produces to back that assertion.

Ken

Is there additives for wind and gusts in the eclipse manual?