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.[/quote]

Michael,
Congrats! Glad you have a defined mission for this rocket. I agree with you that I do not want to own an aircraft I can not stall, at least once.
Two Concerns: 1:
Since yours stalls predictably for you I would still be concerned about accelerated stalls as I am sure you are. Your rocket looks like my Columbia but is not as docile. I have a new goal of knowing my airspeed within 2 knots starting with the base turn. NO, I AM NOT THAT GOOD...YET

2nd non safety concern:
High insurance cost is one thing, not being able to get insurance at all is another. My insurance agent told me a turbine IV had a gear up, parts to repair are not available and plane will have to be totaled. He said AIG and one other company are NO LONGER insuring ANY Lancairs except EVO. Probably just referring to hull insurance and not liability only.

I expect to see you post 400 knots groundspeed sometime this winter!

Please keep this in mind: We all want to see you post on here for a long time in the future, this rocket AND your next purchase.

BE SAFE HAVE FUN BE SAFE HAVE FUN BE SAFE

Michael,

Congrats. The IV-P is my dream plane. I've flown fighters most of my career and the IV seems like a great piston mini fighter jet. It sounds like you know what kind of tiger you have there, so go enjoy it and respect it!

Two questions:

1. Does it have AOA (basically required for a fighter)?
2. What is the glide speed and ratio? Have you got any numbers we can grind on? I'm curious about those things.

Michael,

You certainly do not shy away from challenges. This will be another one. This is definitely a speed at any price airplane. My lone experience was in a two seat lancair. Stall not so nice.

We can talk about myths or not myths. The fact is you are landing with double the energy of a bonanza.

Keep this in mind when you have to engine out into a field. A field is your last option in a baron or eclipse. It may be your only option in a 4P.

It has an AOA and I don't think you want to own one of these without it. I fly a REF speed in it just like a jet but 95kts over the fence (stall + 20) is conservative.

Best glide is 110 light and 120 heavier and I don't know the glide ratio. It's so clean it probably glides GREAT.

Removing stall/spin from the equation, the risk of this airplane is engine failure and hitting something going fast. Obviously going in the trees at 80kts is going to hurt a lot more than 60kts in a Bonanza. I'm addressing this risk by the following:

1) Good maintenance!
2) Seat belt airbags
3) Installing some VGs that lower the stall 8kts (and cost $289!!). http://www.pnwaero.com/Lancair.htm

This training manual is a good place to start reading about this bird: http://www.lancairowners.com/wp-content ... nual-4.pdf

Michael,

I can relate to that... and over the years have become less aggressive with tackling the nasty stuff. Up until a few years ago, I would thrive on figuring out a plan of attack against the nastiest of stuff. Yes, most of it is flyable if one has time and flexibility and a back up plan.

Today, I'm not up for fighting that stuff, but still enjoy what I call "comfortable" IFR, without severe anything. To climb up through a few thousand feet to the sun above and then descend down thru it on the other end is still a hoot... and I don't mind departures and approaches to mins. And night flight is fun, too... cooler, less weather, smoother, less traffic...... but at my age it's past my bedtime.

I don't like lines of TRWs, moderate ice, turbulence or strong surface winds. And tornados and freezing precip are just out, no fun any more.

I certainly respect your limits with the 4P, sounds like a good idea. And if you need some weather flying you have spares in the hangar. Nice plan.

Your fortunate to have many planes. Seems like every time I ended up with more that one plane, boat, or woman it was too much trouble.

I think the addition of the garmin ESP function on their g3x autopilot would really augment a IVp in a great way

Having the servos assist or nudge you when you start to exceed the flight envelope would have maybe saved a lot of pilots

That is more or less how we operate the T-6* on long cross countries... and it works fine with proper planning; the numbers are not unlike a Lancair IV-P or your Navajo (we file our long legs for the mid twenties at 260-280 knots) but the airplane his almost no icing capability. So quite simply it's go around the cold clouds or go somewhere else. At least at those speeds the ice quickly sublimates in clear air


edit/clarification:
* TEX2... the turboprop, not the one with the cool radial engine
+1 to Jim Sokoloff

Congratulations! Enjoy your Lancair, I love the way these planes look and it sounds like you found one that was built right, congrats!

TIL there are two planes called a T-6.

I only knew about the T-6 Texan original and thought "No way in hell that thing does 260KTAS in the low flight levels!" Now, I know there's a T-6 Texan II.

Having survived several years in a glassair III which has similar landing speeds, I'd add:

4) Use the superior rate of climb to always be high enough to pick out an excellent
forced landing spot.

BH

Damn you sir, now I am looking at them again...........................

Not trying to derail the thread into practice full stall vs practice approach to stall debate*, but where people can go wrong when practicing approach to stall is the recovery- that is barely pitching down or not at all. That technique works fine for approach to stall, but in an unintentional actual stall (airplane is trimmed wrong and/or the pilot inadvertently pulls back too hard while maneuvering), the muscle memory from incorrect recovery technique might not decrease the AoA enough to break the stall.



* because I understand the pros and cons of both and the "right answer" depends on airplane/pilot/intended operation (and it's a bit like debating religion)

Not trying to derail the thread into practice full stall vs practice approach to stall debate*, but where people can go wrong when practicing approach to stall is the recovery- that is barely pitching down or not at all. That technique works fine for approach to stall, but in an unintentional actual stall (airplane is trimmed wrong and/or the pilot inadvertently pulls back too hard while maneuvering), the muscle memory from incorrect recovery technique might not decrease the AoA enough to break the stall.



* because I understand the pros and cons of both and the "right answer" depends on airplane/pilot/intended operation (and it's a bit like debating religion)

At my airport, as with many others, one cannot base an aircraft unless it can be and is insured. This used to be for hangared planes. Someone told me a while back that it has now been extended to tied-down aircraft.

Just something to keep in mind.

I joined the LOBO (Lancair Owners Builders Organization). You guys have scared the crap out of me. I really don't want to die. I am second guessing myself on flying this plane with ZERO formal training. I think it flies great and fly it like a Jet or P Baron but I want to know what I'm missing here so I signed up for the formal course. The accident rate is horrific but when I look at the people flying these things I'm convinced Lancairs don't kill people, pilots kill Lancairs. Regardless, I'm going to do the full course for piece of mind. I'm not saying I'm Hotel Sierra (Hot SH$T) but I really feel good in this plane but will appreciate the formal confirmation of such to prevent undue arrogance.

I'd like to think I'm not an idiot pilot who is unskilled but training is never a bad thing.

Mike, ATP, CFI, CFII, MEI, MES, SES, Glider, EA50.