I could not agree more. The fact that it hasn't happened, though, suggests either (i) bad luck (repeated transfers to the wrong people), or (ii) what seems viable on paper really isn't. Otherwise someone would have done it. I am actually hopeful that (i) is the truth and that we might soon see these great airplanes move forward.

My personal evaluation is that they would either need to capture the build assist avenue (how much of that there is in the price range these planes would need to be in to be competitive isn’t clear to me) or they need to idiot proof and streamline the build process to make it competitive (or ideally better) than an RV. I know I couldn’t personally undertake either of those.

I think there’s a market (which RDD recognizes with the lx7) for a personal aircraft that is pressurized and has some traveling legs (but is cheaper to buy and run than a Malibu/meridian). How you could tap into that market efficiently and make a profit, however, is not as clear to me.

Regarding the es-r, I understood that was essentially just a slightly improved Mako (maybe the same single airframe). Only its nose gear retracts, and I think there’s only that one out there (maybe some kits in various stages somewhere?).

Seems like RDD could capture this market with build assist...
They are already doing 100% new wings and tail...

The problem is regulatory.... they can take an already flying IV-P and do anything they want to .....

They just can't do it from scratch without a at least a data plate and a airworthiness certificate.

Brian, this "flying coffin" reference is just completely unfair. When someone gets into a IV that has been built by someone else, that person is "OBLIGATED" to gingerly approach stall and get to know the airplane. That should be the approach with the purchase of ANY experiemental. If someone bought mine, or maybe even your prior ES, and they did this, they would find pretty benign characteristics. if they did with a IV that has much higher wing loading, they might find more hazardous characteristics. But "flying coffin" is ridiculous and uncalled for. Any plane piloted by someone with no understanding of the envelope is a flying coffin.

Sorry,

Brian, this "flying coffin" reference is just completely unfair. When someone gets into a IV that has been built by someone else, that person is "OBLIGATED" to gingerly approach stall and get to know the airplane. That should be the approach with the purchase of ANY experiemental. If someone bought mine, or maybe even your prior ES, and they did this, they would find pretty benign characteristics. if they did with a IV that has much higher wing loading, they might find more hazardous characteristics. But "flying coffin" is ridiculous and uncalled for. Any plane piloted by someone with no understanding of the envelope is a flying coffin.

Sorry,

Apparently they have a completely new kit for the lx7 as well per their website. Maybe rdd can be the one to pull it off.

Still not fair. "Flying coffin" is bad form and is just wrong.

I have zero hours in a IV. I do know several pilots who have many hours who say the bad rap is not correct. Stay within the envelope, they fly beautifully. Stay within the envelope. Those are the four key words. (I am setting aside bad build issues, which I'm sure Brad and others have seen plenty of).

Setting aside build issues, my bet is that these awesome pilots you're talking about who have crashed needed more coddling a lot more ego-checking than they thought. Did they actually think about and/or test what happens when you add too much power on a go around with a very powerful engine in a 3000 lb airplane? Did they calculate in advance what their stall speed would be at 100 or 110 kts and 30-40 degrees of bank in an airplane with the IV's wing loading? Did they remind themselves that stalls can occur at any airspeed and that accelerated stalls can be bigger deal in airplanes with high wing loading and laminar flow wings. Just asking.

If you spin a T6, as appears may have recently been done over the lake at Oshkosh, you're probably in trouble unless you're pretty high. I do not for one minute doubt that the same is true in a IV, or that it may not even be recoverable -- I dunno, and I'd never wanna find out if I owned one. That's the point. And while I never want to spin my ES, I'd feel a lot better at 10,000 ft if that ever happened (it won't unless something really crazy happens with weather) than I would at 4000. These planes are not designed to be spun. The ES was spun many times when it was working toward certification (I spoke with someone who either was or was in close contact with the test pilot), but it's tail is a bit too small, and perhaps there were other factors that kept it from passing muster for spin recovery. So what? Don't get near a spin. The IV is designed with a particular wing loading that requires careful attention to airspeed, accelerated stall potential, etc. It's not a Cessna. Neither is a T6. Torque effect on go arounds in the IV Turbines and even the TSIO550s is a serious deal. Etc. etc. Noone should get in a IV without knowing about these issues. Those who get in IVs knowing these issues love the airplanes. Those who get in the IV and mess up these and other issues pay the price.

That's my point. I certainly appreciate what RDD is doing to make airplanes with near IV performance more idiot proof. That's a very good thing. But I don't think it's fair at all to call the IV a flying coffin. Because apart from build issues, it is a flying coffin only for those who don't understand and stay within the envelope.

You owned the ES longer than I have and know it better than I do. Mine behaves wonderfully at/near stall. But the only reason I'd ever go there is to pass a commercial checkride. I wouldn't take a commercial checkride in a IV unless I had a well-calibrated AOA indicator and made it clear to the examiner I wasn't going past the first indication of a stall, which would come well before stall.

Happy and safe flying,
Dan

I flew an ES from Oshkosh to the DFW area, the only time I’ve flown one, and found it to be a good flyer with docile tendencies more like a Bonanza.

No, it's fair enough. The record of the IV speaks for itself despite all the excuses. The big tail models like your ES are a different animal. If lancair had wised up and made those changes in the beginning, they might have developed into another Vans in this market. But they didn't, and now the IV is just another footnote on a long list of failed kit concepts.

Dan, you’re completely missing the point- don’t compare the ES to the IV at all

Your other posts on lancairtalk seem to carry a theme here that you are on a crusade to alter the public perception of the Lancair brand as a whole- the ES is great, we know that, the IV variants have claimed many lives, sadly-

Did you read every single NTSB report on them yet? I have

Lancair Safety Record Trending Up

From Jeff Edwards (part of much longer post)

LOBO has promoted good safe flying in these machines through education, training, social events and more. Many training and technical documents are found on our website. Additionally, we have served as parties (pro bono) to NTSB investigations of numerous Lancair accidents and have drafted several service bulletins addressing the FAA and NTSB concerns. Today our annual fatal accident averages are one third of what they were in 2008 and we have not had a fatal U.S. Lancair accident in 27 months-- the longest fatal accident free stretch in 20 years.

I asked the then-CEO of Lancair/Evolution about the sale of the ES (and Legacy, and IV) lines to Texas. He said the driver was that sales had dried up -- they'd sold just 2 Legacy kits, no ES or IV, in the entire preceding year. Used examples were available for substantially less than the cost to build new, even cheaper than the cost of the kit alone. The Texans planned to re-invigorate the lines with innovations to differentiate new kits from old. Not a bad idea, but the partially retractable gear didn't turn out to be the "worth buying new" feature they were hoping for.

I asked a shop owner, who used to work at Lancair, about the ES. He finds it frustrating what it has become. He loved the ES when it came out with the original IO-360 as a simple, straightforward, easy to build and easy to fly contrast to the IV. But then came incremental improvements that all made the airplane heavier: IO-550, a second door, electric A/C, parachute, plusher seats, etc. He says the one in his shop has 150 lbs. of ballast and will be over gross with just the pilot and full fuel.

No, it's fair enough. The record of the IV speaks for itself despite all the excuses. The big tail models like your ES are a different animal. If lancair had wised up and made those changes in the beginning, they might have developed into another Vans in this market. But they didn't, and now the IV is just another footnote on a long list of failed kit concepts.