Ok, 1250 NM range IFR at 65% power at 230 knots true burning 13 GPH on a normally aspirated bullet proof io-540. 900 lb useful load which is enough for two adults and 60 lbs of bags along with the above fuel. 2500+ fpm climb, aerobatic, and a 290 knot VNE.

Put in a dual screen G3X with Garmin autopilot and you have a serious cross country machine with virtually zero maintenance and better avionics than any certified machine with autopilot servos costing $800 new and MFDs for 2k. Heck, you can have both screens, autopilot with altitude preselect and straight/level mode/ airspeed climb etc highway in the sky, synthetic vision, engine monitor, etc for under $15k installed.

Wait til your kids are out of school.

High wing loading and 75kt stall speed is an easy way to kill yourself.

Was that you practicing approaches at Auburn with Fort Wayne approach today?

Get one or consider a lancair legacy too. Most of the IIIs i have seen have the extended wing option which helps it slow down.

I have owned several experimentals and believe the right plane offers benefits that cannot be found in the certified market.

Obviously there are some downsides but most of these can be mitigated.

Mike

Lol, Charles. I have owned a fighter jet, a turbine experimental helicopter, and a Duke. I don't think the Glasair would be much a challenge. Also, I don't fly slow, so the stall speed means nothing to me. It just seems like a great personal traveling machine and with the avionics and autopilots available from garmin it would be a very safe IFR machine.

I was asked to get checked out in one a while back so that I could then help the owner with his transition training. Probably flew it for 10 hours or a bit more. Although not for a newbie, there was nothing in this hot little rascal that I thought was particularly worrisome. Forgiving? No. Performance and honesty? Yes.

The GIII has been my dream aircraft for quite some time.

At the moment I'm seriously considering 'parting-out' my V35 and going 'experimental'.

Let's face it: Continental 'forgot' how to make engines properly a while ago. And I'm stuck in third world country, GA-wise.

My research suggests that the Glasairs have a much better safety record than the Lancairs. My research suggests that this is because the Glasair design is far more forgiving if the aircraft stalls.

But there's no POH Todd. You might have to take training. That turn you off?

If training was available I would probably take an hour or so of dual to have someone show me the envelope of the plane. Otherwise, I would take it slow and fly it like I fly anything - very conservatively from a performance standpoint. Longer runways than needed and higher speeds when maneuvering.

I just can't believe the performance. This would do my FL trip in 3:30 or so and do it on 50 gallons of gas or so. Might be a good plane to keep around with the kids gone to travel back home and as a second plane when it is just me and another person. The Lycoming engine, speed, range and the awesome avionics available for 10 cents on the dollar is very enticing.

Todd, a friend of mine has one and I have flown with him many times. While it's not my cup of tea, the plane is good and it's geared towards "get up and go" kind of a mission. I didn't think much of it for tooling around but again, that's not what the plane is meant for. He gets honest 235ktas on probably about 14gph.. I think I remember seeing 180 true on 19 square down low but that was just a show off demo, not something you'd use on regular basis... Doesn't like to slow down and his has a very low gear speed (120kts).. I believe there's a mod (???) to increase this as 120 is really low for this plane.. you just about have to kill the engine to get it that slow. Lands pretty fast too..

Don't care for the seating position, but I guess you get used to it.. Fly one before you buy it, though you probably would like it anyways.

oh thats easy... I was a lancair fanatic, and owned and was building a lancair 360 before selling it to buy the Bonanza.

They are built of composite material... Oh yes is so soooo smooth, no seams, and no corrosion but,

-Anything that is glued together will eventually come unglued, might be 60 years from now but it will.

-Its a very fast airplane, it doesn't fly slow. When you land whether during normal procedures, or an emergency, it will be fast.

-car accident survivability is great because cars have very high tech crumple zones, metal airplanes including bonanzas, have the ability to crush. Every time something crushes it absorbs energy and extends the time and distance the occupants have to decelerate. Composite airplanes have no ability to crush. They are in one piece or the crack or shatter. What this does when it crashes is the occupants will be in tact, they will be killed from rapid deceleration.

-Whether you build the airplane or not, it has no real standard for the build. Meaning wings, flaps, ailerons, and other critical parts may not have been bonded correctly. So when you are doing a high G turn you better hope the guy five beers in that night in his garage glued your stuff together correctly.

-The insurance will be horrendous.

-Parts availability can be spotty, the have been owned by different people.

-My friend who owns a glasair told me and its true for any kit plane, you spend 3 years building it and 5 years making it dependable.

-They are a pain to get in to, those little gull wing doors look nice but not easy to get in and out of.

-Also the airplane sits up pretty high and have no step, if you are short, get a stool or a running start.

Owning experimental airplanes has its set of advantages but for me the disadvantages are too great. Yes avionics and maintenance is saved but your life cannot.

Talked out out of it?

Do you have a specific one you're looking at?

Was it professionally built in a controlled environment? A must in my opinion for composite structures.

I built a composite kit plane back in the late 90's and although it is still flying around today I wouldn't hop in it now. I built the damn thing in my garage through all the four seasons we have here in Pittsburgh. Who knows how strong those lay-ups are today.

"Friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes"

Those are good points Shaun. Yes, I would agree the impact survivability is not as good. I built and flew a Velocity back in 1994. I never worried about the impact. I worried about fire more. As for parts - price a gear door or a starter adapter for your Bonanza lately? With Garmin experimental avionics and autopilot and a Lycoming 540 I don't see much to spend there. The airframe parts are available from what I can tell. Insurance is pretty cheap on the non-pressurized singles. I think I can get insurance for about the same as a Bonanza.

I would only buy one that was professionally built or was given the go ahead by a shop that specializes in them. I remember doing the layups in my Velocity. It is pretty easy work, but requires attention. With that said, how many times has a 40 year old Bonanza been overspeeded, run through thunderstorms, landed hard, etc? Annual inspections don't catch everything.

I say do it. But be sure to have a couple experienced Glasair builders and an A&P or two take a very very close look first.

The nice thing about being able to price those expensive beechcraft parts is, you actually can get them. Sometimes the manufacturer will just stop making things for them. You can produce almost everything yourself pretty easily if you have a past in composites. But things like new windows and landing gear components might be more difficult. My insurance quote for my lancair was in the 4-6k range for a 100k hull. My bonanza is 1150 for 90k hull.

A much better option if you are going kit plane, it will be complex to maintain, but its metal and dead sexy is a SX-300. Same great performance.