That makes sense. I will check those figures for you. I do know that I initially set my gain to 4 on the roll and that was a big mistake. The autopilot would literally react to every bump - even those I could not feel! Probably a good setting for something like a Cessna 172, but not a heavily loaded wing airplane with light controls.

Ok, Roll gain is set to 1.50 with 70% max torque. Pitch gain is set to 1.0 with 70% max torque. The flight director is set as single cue and 30 degrees. I will try 20 degrees and see if it is different.

Todd,

You've done a stellar job convincing me, and probably a bunch of other folks, why I need a Glasair III someday (I can only imagine what that thing would do with a turbo).

What are some reasons why I wouldn't want a Glasair III (useful load/cabin size aside)? Or, put more plainly, what are some short comings of owning an experimental given your experience(s)?

Rob,

The shortcoming of the Glasair for me is the lack of de-ice. The guys at Therma-Wing claim that they can provide a solution, but nobody has done it yet.

As far as useful load goes, that is not a concern. Mine has a useful of over 900 lbs and with enough fuel to go 950 NM + IFR reserves I can still put 2 185 lb adults and 100 lbs of bags in the plane or I can go 1150 NM with 30 lbs of bags and the same two adults. When I fly the plane for family travel I take the bags for all 4 of us and my 15-year-old 6'1" son rides with me. In fact, I am giving him primary instruction in the plane. Cabin size is also not a concern. The plane is actually slightly wider than a Bonanza inside and the seats are definitely more comfortable. Getting in and out is a little more of a challenge, but once you get accustomed it is a natural process. To make the seats more comfortable for taller pilots I am having the seats built with two panels in the back that are removable. If you are over 6'3" (depending on your leg length) the Glasair probably is not going to be comfortable due to leg room concerning the rudder pedals. If you are between 5'8"-6-1" it is very comfortable.

Here is the real advantage - Efficiency and rough air capability!

These are honest numbers I can prove for a 900 NM trip non-stop at 12,500 ft.

Initial Climb to 12500 - 6 Minutes @ 130 KTAS average / 13 miles / 2.5 Gallons
Cruise @ 125000 - 4 Hr 0 Min @ 210 KTAS average / 840 miles / 51.2 Gallons
Descent to SL - 12 minutes @ 220 KTAS average / 47 miles /2.5 Gallons

Total time 4 Hr 18 Minutes using 56.2 Gallons. The main tank holds 64 gallons, so you have nearly 8 gallons (38 minutes) remaining in that tank and another 38 minutes in the header tank that is completely separate as well, so you have at least 1 hour.

If you are willing to suck on O2 you can get down to 11 GPH at 16k at nearly the same speeds. Of course, taking advantage of a tailwind helps, but the ability to fly low in a NA engine and high wing loading through the bumps if there are headwinds up high is a real advantage because you can still get 200+ knots on 15 GPH or less down low. On my last trip home from FL we flew between 800-1500 ft all the way to Chattanooga and averaged over 200 knots TAS burning 14.7 GPH. The winds at 3k were 20, 35 at 6k and 50 at 9k. A turbocharged Bonanza would have been burning 18.5 GPH to get maybe 170 knots at that altitude and would have been beat to death in bumps. Climbing to 12+k where the turbo helps would have yielded ground speeds of maybe 130 knots.

Of course, the icing on the cake is the avionics package. Once you fly the G3X you will throw stones at anything else. It simply is unbelievable. Coupled with this airframe it is just a joy to fly regardless of the smoothness of the air.

As for the turbo - YES - it would be great to get to 25k ft and turn 275+ knots TAS on 18 GPH, but the cost to do so, the extra maintenance, and the higher fuel burn down low kills that idea for me. I wanted a simple airplane with little maintenance. After 50 hours I have not had to fix anything on this plane. I truly believe I will go all year without a repair needed. The engine runs super cool and has plenty of room under the cowl to inspect and work on if needed. Adding a turbo changes the game completely. Just not worth it to me.

Thanks for the follow up, Todd, and my apologies for assuming that the cabin was small. I guess I just incorrectly assumed "well, for an aircraft with that kind of performance, the cabin must be tight!" I stand corrected The Glasair sounds like one heck of a performer.

The ThermaWing sounds like a great idea. I'd love to see them get a FIKI STC someday for certified aircraft. The first thought that pops into my mind is "what about run-back icing?" But, I guess the big idea is for protection and to buy you some time to get out of it safely. Would the TW require you to install another alternator?

It sounds like you are very hands-on with the plane and have put a lot of diligent time and effort into making this "your plane" which is awesome and must feel amazing each time you go fly. Did you have help with installing the avionics, etc... or did you teach yourself or know how to do it already?

The G3X looks incredible, especially for the money. Given the same budget for certified aircraft vs. experimental, it's amazing how much more technology you can pack into an experimental panel.

No apologies needed. The Glasair is about 10 knots slower than a Lancair Legacy, but the cabin is bigger and the plane is stronger. The cabin is much bigger than a 320/360 Lancair and that is why it takes 300 HP to get another 20 knots fater over the Lancair on 200 HP.

The Therma-Wing eliminates runback icing by continually heating the front of the wing. The ice then runs back and freezes about 6" back on the wing. After a short time that section then heats and sheds the ice and then immediately turns cold so ice being melted on the front of the wing can re-freeze on the shedding area for the next cycle. It is a good idea and I believe they have worked out the bugs. It does require a 100-amp alternator specifically for the icing system and it can be used as a backup as well.

I did not install any of the avionics. I paid a Garmin shop to gut the entire airplane and start over. They did a great job and far better than I could ever hope to do. The G3X really completes this plane. Once you fly the system you will wonder how you ever lived without it. Just too amazing.

Todd, I have really enjoyed reading your posts on your Glassair. I have been lurking for awhile. Just saw my first Glassair III that I parked next to at Sun N Fun. The things that stood out to me as I asked the owner questions were the apparent strength of the landing gear and the one piece wing. Couple questions that you have probably already answered. One is have you landing on grass fields? The second is how comfortable is the seating position on 3-4 hour flights?

BTW love the G3X screenshots. I have a G3X (non-touch) but usually just take photos of the panel in flight. I fly an IO-550 non-pressurized Lancair IV, which is sort of different but I highly recommend for someone who appreciates efficiency. Its about 10 knots faster than my neighbors Legacy, is a real 4 person carrier, and has some serious range when you go up high. Downside compared to the glassair: insurance is ridiculous if you buy it, I won't take it into grass, some have a nasty stall though mine stalled just like my Mooney, its not aerobatic (which is okay cause I hate G's), and it has a higher approach speed but I live on a 3000 foot strip and its never been an issue.

Will try to attach a screen shot at 13000.

Thanks again for your contributions. Beautiful bird.

Insane numbers

Wow, thise are crazy numbers. I predict Todd will get a lancair IV next.

Almost 18nmpg doing 240....yeah, that's pretty good.

WOW !!! 4 seats and 240kts on 18nmpg Without Turbo charging. Lancair IV is the way to go.

Lancair IV is a great machine. Clean Wing makes it a rocket ship. If I owned one it would be the non-turbo just like the one above for the simplicity and the efficiency.

I looked very hard at the IV, but at the end of the day it still would not get 4 people and bags along with enough fuel for a 900NM trip non-stop. I could not find one that was cheap enough to retro the way I wanted it and insurance was quoted at $8k. My plane was expensive enough and with one engine questionable enough that I wanted it insured. $3400/yr and no school sealed the deal there. I also just liked the look of the Glasair and the center stick fighter feel. Other than that, the IV is just an incredible plane. Heck, all of these fast glass planes are incredible. The ability to get 18-20 MPH at 210-230 knots in these planes is awesome. The further ability to have a panel better than a new Citation jet really makes you look hard at them.

Thanks for sharing the performance!! You have a great plane there!

I forgot to answer your questions, lol. Anyway, grass is fine, but I do not fly any high performance airplanes off of grass. I just don't like the beating the airplane takes. To me, grass is for Cubs and the like.

As for the comfort - I have now made 4 legs of more than 4 hours and feel very good when getting out. It has a very natural seating position.

Also, I noticed that you are getting 19.5 IN MP at 13k ft while I am only getting 18.4 IN at 12.5k. I would think that extra 1.1 IN MP would help me out - more like 1.6 IN at the altitude you are at. I do not have ram air available. Would that be the difference?

Todd, yes, there is a huge disparity in empty weights and gross weights in the various Lancair IV's. Mine has 1529lb useful load and I have taken 4 people, luggage, raft, life vests, ditch bag, tools etc non-stop from Vero Beach to Puerto Rico and landed with 1 hr 45 minutes of fuel at cruise setting. Still climbed 1500 ft/min at about 160-180KTAS in the humid Vero air. Nothing compared to the Glassair, but its also lifting a pretty good load. Also have taken the trip from KLMO to SC99 (1200+ nm) three times non-stop but only with two and three people on board and luggage. Admitedly on those three trips I have been 19000 to 23000 and catching a nice tail wind sipping 9-9.5 GPH on 210 knots true but always landing with over 2 hours of fuel on board. Its all about building them light and simple but I have seen many that weigh 500lbs more than mine empty. And your comments regarding range definitely apply to those birds. I have seen it over and over again. I think many people build with the thought that they are going to use it as a two place plane with lots of luggage space and they just cram toys in. Then there is the other end of the spectrum and Bill Harrleson who saw the range potential in the plane and purposely built it to set distance records. Thats another story- amazing guy and amazing plane. Over 7000nm non-stop.

WOW!! That is amazing. The best useful I could find was 1190 lbs. It was a non-turbo as well. That is an outstanding useful and performance! Just too cool. Any chance you can make it to Max's Knoxville fly-in on the 30th?? Like to see some fast glass there