22 May 2025, 18:06 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today  Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 18:11 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 11/22/08
Posts: 3082
Post Likes: +1049
Company: USAF Propulsion Laboratory
Location: Dayton, OH
Aircraft: PA24, AEST 680, 421
|
|
|
The Evolution is a nice plane, but for the price difference with the IV-P I could live with the higher approach speeds. When I was talking with the folks last summer at Oshkosh, you can get a piston powered Evolution but evidently everyone wanted the turboprop.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 18:47 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 7311
Post Likes: +4806
Location: Live in San Carlos, CA - based Hayward, CA KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ... for the price difference with the IV-P I could live with the higher approach speeds. An awful lot of people have not, in fact, lived with the higher approach speeds...
_________________
-Jon C.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 19:20 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2279
Post Likes: +705
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ... for the price difference with the IV-P I could live with the higher approach speeds. An awful lot of people have not, in fact, lived with the higher approach speeds...
Exactly. If I were gifted one, I would immediately sell it and make the buyer sign a release waiver along the lines of "I know this plane could kill me and I still want to buy it."
I think the piston vs. turboprop debate comes down to most buyers of planes like this pay someone else to build them, and if they can afford $500-$600k (or whatever the price is) for a piston version can also afford $1MM to get the turboprop and don't sweat the difference in operational costs. Those like me that have to choose from old used planes do care about this sort of thing, and look ahead 20 years and wish/hope there will be some piston variants around! 
It is similar to how the market reacted when Mooney came out with the M20R Ovation (IO-550 powered) in 1994 and the M20M Bravo in the 1989-1990 time frame. Previously they were making 200 hp 201's (or MSE, or Allegro...the legendary M20J) and 231/252/Encore 210-220 hp turbocharged M20Ks. By this time the new prices had put planes out of reach for most personal fliers (like me), and those individuals or businesses that could write the check for a $400-$500k plane new didn't sweat the additional GPH or maintenance costs for a bigger engine and just wanted more performance. Fast forward a few years and the M20J went out of production and was completely displaced by the Ovation and later the Eagle, which was a de-rated Ovation that only lasted two years in the market. The Bravo (270 hp turbo) displaced the M20K as well, although it came back for a couple years in the late 90s but didn't sell very well compared to the Bravo. The OEM cost delta for a 200-210 hp engine vs. the 270-300 hp engine is on the order of only $10k or less. The labor and materials to build the lower-powered planes is nearly identical, so in the end these former best-sellers disappeared from the new market. I hope this means my great M20J will command a premium in the market for years to come. Low operational costs are important to me... to carry measurably more or go measurably faster would require a substantial increase in acquisition and/or operational costs.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 23:25 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6475
Post Likes: +14193
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Does the 'IE2' already exist ? I flew the Piston Evolution for an article. The engine was still very experimental at that point and they were have problems with the software. It had to run at 420-440 CHT temps and they said they could control it well enough with the electronics to make it live at those temps... It had no mixture control, and no cowl flaps. I was skeptical. I think Lycoming dropped the project.... I don't think they never priced the engine, but if the IE2 cost $75-100K and a mid time PT-6-135 was $250K for the finished price difference of say $1M to $1.25 the performance and reliability makes the turbine a no brainer.... The Evolution is an incredible airplane.... The IV-P is a very very high performance airplane, with a highly stressed engine. A very bad combination, IMHO of course.
_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 23:40 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8110
Post Likes: +7829
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: An awful lot of people have not, in fact, lived with the higher approach speeds... What's the problem with higher approach speeds? I find it more difficult to fly slow approaches, not fast ones. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 23:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6475
Post Likes: +14193
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
|
Flying a fast approach in an airplane made to land slow is easy....
Flying an on-speed approach in the IV-P is difficult, and,
Getting slow in the IV-P is easy,
And deadly...
_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 08:31 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/29/10
Posts: 5660
Post Likes: +4881
Company: USAF Simulator Instructor
Location: Wichita Valley Airport (F14)
Aircraft: Bonanza G35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If I were gifted one, I would immediately sell it and make the buyer sign a release waiver along the lines of "I know this plane could kill me and I still want to buy it." You could make the same statement about any airplane or, for that matter, your car, boat, skis or kitchen knife.
_________________
FTFA RTFM
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 08:45 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6025
Post Likes: +3388
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Does the 'IE2' already exist ? I flew the Piston Evolution for an article. The engine was still very experimental at that point and they were have problems with the software. It had to run at 420-440 CHT temps and they said they could control it well enough with the electronics to make it live at those temps... It had no mixture control, and no cowl flaps. I was skeptical. I think Lycoming dropped the project.... I don't think they never priced the engine, but if the IE2 cost $75-100K and a mid time PT-6-135 was $250K for the finished price difference of say $1M to $1.25 the performance and reliability makes the turbine a no brainer.... The Evolution is an incredible airplane.... The IV-P is a very very high performance airplane, with a highly stressed engine. A very bad combination, IMHO of course.
Interesting. Since they announced the IE2 option with a $100k price point, I always though they needed to drop the electronics and switch to a TN IO-550. Now that would be a hell of an efficient plane.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 11:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 8110
Post Likes: +7829
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Flying a fast approach in an airplane made to land slow is easy....
Flying an on-speed approach in the IV-P is difficult, and,
Getting slow in the IV-P is easy,
And deadly... True. But what I am asking is, if I can hold my approach speed at 120 +/- 5 kts in a Bo, is it any more difficult to maintain 120 +/- 5 kts in IV-P?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 12:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2279
Post Likes: +705
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Flying a fast approach in an airplane made to land slow is easy....
Flying an on-speed approach in the IV-P is difficult, and,
Getting slow in the IV-P is easy,
And deadly... True. But what I am asking is, if I can hold my approach speed at 120 +/- 5 kts in a Bo, is it any more difficult to maintain 120 +/- 5 kts in IV-P?
I only have a tiny amount of stick time in one, but I suspect Doug will concur... the answer is YES. Marginal stability and poor control harmony lead to a much higher workload in an IFR environment. Then consider the atrocious low-speed behavior, especially after a stall, and you can begin to understand why it has the record it does.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 13:04 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 10014
Post Likes: +2440
Location: Arizona (KSEZ)
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Interesting. Since they announced the IE2 option with a $100k price point, I always though they needed to drop the electronics and switch to a TN IO-550. Now that would be a hell of an efficient plane. The guy two doors down from my hangar has a IV-P IO-550. Beautiful plane but, he is always having problems with the 550. Cylinders, overheating, etc. his cruise cylinder temps are around 420 deg. The cabin is so small when it pressurizes it pops you eardrums.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Flew a Lancair IV-P today Posted: 12 Feb 2013, 17:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6475
Post Likes: +14193
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
True. But what I am asking is, if I can hold my approach speed at 120 +/- 5 kts in a Bo, is it any more difficult to maintain 120 +/- 5 kts in IV-P?
Very much so. The reason why faster approaches are easier in your Bo is because as you increase your speed, the center of pressure on the wing moves aft, which makes if farther from the center of pressure of the wing which means the airplane becomes more stable. The Baron/Bo are very stable airplanes to start with and have a relatively strong desire to seek their trim speed because of the stability and the low internal friction of the control system. In short, the Baron/Bo is a VERY easy airplane to fly when it is at 1.3 Vso and it gets easier as you go faster. The IV-P and other higher performance aircraft are not this way. They have very little desire to maintain their trimmed AOA (airspeed). Control friction where the controls pass through the pressure bulkhead makes this worse. The IV-P would fail to meet many of the FAA certification requirements, especially the pitch force gradient and stall characteristics. The IV-P is beyond the skills of most GA owner pilots. I fly nearly 400 hrs per year, and ~ 100 hrs of that is in WWII fighters, I fly my Baron and F-1 Rocket what many would call hard IFR, and a surface level aerobatic waiver in 8 types of aircraft. Sadly, I have a fairly high tolerance for risk, and I would not operate a IV-P in the instrument environment. And I believe the accident statistics support that. Apply Drew's Law here... "80% of the pilots think they are in the top 20%." And Rozendaal's corollary, "The reality is half of us are below average."
_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
