Lancair Legacy [Archive]

an3_bolt

29th Apr 2008, 04:34

I want one of these aircraft. Period.

Why? What is the intended role? VFR? IFR? What experience do you have and level of currency? Where are you going to fly? Who is going to maintain it? How often is it going to be flown? How long are you prepared to building before you fly?

There is a VERY HIGH accident and fatality rate for these category of aircraft. I believe quite often the wrong person is attracted to it for the wrong reasons - sometimes ending in disaster. I would advise people who want to fly these aircraft types because they go fast, or look cool - are inviting serious trouble in the very least. These aircraft are not toys. They are not for the inexperienced. They are not for people who want to go for a "spin". Others have tried it before you and not walked away.

I have built and flown 2 lancair 360 aircraft and I have enjoyed many hundreds of hours in them. However - the enjoyable flying charateristics can be the undoing for some people- ie light control forces, marginal longitudinal stability, rapid roll rates, high wing loading, high approach speeds and stall speeds, light weight/low inertia aircraft.

I find them very enjoyable to fly - but when they bite - it can be without much warning and the consequences can be severe. A very healthy respect for the aircraft characteristics, serious discipline, complete situation awareness and an over riding desire to stay out of trouble and alive are required.

The building process was overall very enjoyable and rewarding. There are many knowledgeable and interesting people that you may come across through various builders groups throughout the world and the SAAA. The knowledge that you gain and the friendships you make is fantastic. But be prepared to be building for many years. The building is really a fundamental part of this aircraft category.

oldm8 - I most respectfully suspect by the tone of your post that this may not be a suitable aircraft for your purposes. Do not be disheartened - I am sure that there is another aircraft type out there that would be more suitable and sustainable for yourself - just keep looking.

Good luck

desmotronic

29th Apr 2008, 05:11

Oldm8,
Have a look at this, not the same top speed but looks like a lot of fun.

http://www.harmonrocket.com/

Columbia

29th Apr 2008, 06:25

Oldm8 as far as I know, there is one Legacy close to flying in Australia with another kit on the way. The aerofoil is completely different to the Lancair IV & Lancair 200-360 series. It is a much more forgiving airframe. Having said that, I must agree with other posters in saying that you should be experienced & current before flying these high performance aircraft. I have over 300 hours in Lancair IV's including 4 first flight test programs & can assure you that it is not an abinitio training aircraft!
You can test fly a Legacy at Redmond Oregon at the Lancair Factory or at Oshkosh in July. In my opinion, the Legacy flight controls are much better balanced compared to all the other Lancair models. The IO-550 Continental powered Legacy (310 HP) should cruise at 240 knots if well constructed.

VH-XXX

29th Apr 2008, 07:47

The topic is diverting to Lancair models that are totally unrelated to the original post. The Aircraft that Sunfish speaks of (whilst trajic) was a highly modified turbine 4 seat version that had known aerodynamic issues when it took flight. You can't compare the two.

Ultralights

29th Apr 2008, 08:50

wasn't Tony Blair's Harmon for sale recently?

lostpianoplayer

29th Apr 2008, 09:01

...don't wanna hijack, but I fly an HRII, and I believe it's the best possible mix of all the various things I'd like in an aircraft. ast, slow, right side up, upside down, HUGE load carrying capacity, maneuverable....Obviously these vary from owner to owner, but I think it has much better low speed manners than a Lancair, from what I've read. 200 knots, honest ones, are nearly as good as 240, in the real world, and being able to slow her up to use a 900 foot strip is great...and damn good for precautionary landings. Try putting a Lancair into a farm paddock if you had to, and I'll betcha the chances are higher that you'll come unstuck. Seriously aerobatic, lighter wing loading, solid - and welded - undercarriage (which I think is a real plus), and - my favourite bit - very, very simple to operate. I'm reasonably experienced, although nothin like some of the fellas on Pprune - but I see the simplicity as being all about margin. In other words, I presume with appropriate training I could handle a Lancair, or for that matter a P-51, but if a Rocket is easier to fly, then that's all good when the chips (and the ceilings) are down. And easy doesn't mean boring, I promise :)

Not trying to steer anyone away from the Lancair, about which I know jack$&it, and I confess I gaze lustfully at the IV-P (turbine) myself....so much as confirm from 500 joyful hours in the HRII that it's a hell of a machine, and in my opinion a pretty safe one too. Certainly, I'd recommend looking around as much as poss before settling on any particular machine, and I applaud the idea of getting a flight or two in as many different machines as you can con the owners into taking you on. If you made it to Queenstown NZ I know someone who'd take you flying in a Harmon Rocket, just, well, cos it's there :)

oldm8

29th Apr 2008, 13:22

What experience do you have and level of currency?

>2000 command in CT4, PC9, Hawk 127 and F/A-18. Obviously a military operator, less than 50 in recreational aircraft but I know what I dont know, and this seems to keep me safe.

Thanks everyone for all the info so far. I am nowhere near actually moving on this just getting as much info as I can.

Jabawocky

29th Apr 2008, 22:42

oldm8

>2000 command in CT4, PC9, Hawk 127 and F/A-18. Obviously a military operator

You need one of these, two seater, might just make RAA category, and with heaps of retired models an endless supply of parts!

http://www.defence.gov.au/Raaf/aircraft/images/f111/f111-headon.jpg

J:ok:

Howard Hughes

29th Apr 2008, 22:58

>2000 command in CT4, PC9, Hawk 127 and F/A-18. Obviously a military operator, less than 50 in recreational aircraft but I know what I dont know, and this seems to keep me safe.

You don't want a Lancair, you want one of these! (http://www.viper-aircraft.com/) Surely that is more up your alley...:ok:

The only thing I have to say about the Lancair is look at the prop, look at the moment arm and then look at the size of the rudder, now I am no aerodynamics expert, but to me that just doesn't compute!:ooh:

Although if you are going the factory built option, I can't see it would be a problem! I am just a bit iffy about some of the original 'homebuilt mods'.:eek:

Cheers, HH.

PS: If you get one, can I come for a ride?:E

Sunfish

30th Apr 2008, 02:18

What experience do you have and level of currency?
>2000 command in CT4, PC9, Hawk 127 and F/A-18. Obviously a military operator, less than 50 in recreational aircraft but I know what I dont know, and this seems to keep me safe.

With the greatest respect, my friend who was killed helping out the owner of this particular Lancair had s similar (and distinguished) background.

Jabawocky

30th Apr 2008, 03:53

Sunny,

I vaguely remember reading a report on a modified Lancair which stalled and spun in, and it sounds like your friend. Was this the case?

Maybe you can direct us to the ATSB report?

If that is the same one its a bit unfair to bundle it in with all standard lancairs. I do believe they are a machine for the well trained and prepared, not an average Joe weekend warrior, but I do not think that they can not be operated safely.

J

Capt Fathom

30th Apr 2008, 04:18

ATSB Report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/AAIR/aair200206005.aspx)

Jabawocky

30th Apr 2008, 04:41

C F

Thanks for that:ok:.

I assume this is the one that Sunny refers to.

J

NOtimTAMs

30th Apr 2008, 13:52

Lancair 320 360 and IV - high stall speed compared with most of the GA fleet, nasty stall behaviour with little/no warning or buffet, fibreglass. Engine failure usually results in a non-survivable situation if off airport (if you go too slow, you spin in; if you keep your speed up you've got an emergency landing at 90 Kts in a fibreglass aircraft - lotsa kinetic energy). Only time I've REALLY scared myself has been practising stalls in a Lancair 360 on a familiarisation flight [yeah yeah, I know, you don't buy Lancair to go slow...]. Have been several accidents similar to the one that Sunfish has mentioned (a colleague of mine was killed in that one) - I recall one near St Lawrence in Qld with a female pilot about 9 years ago, I think.

The Legacy may well have a different airfoil and behaviours and perhaps there have been some mods to the original Lancair fleet that have improved the sitation, but I'm not up to speed on that, I'll admit.

Sunfish

30th Apr 2008, 23:09

Captain Fathom, thanks for posting the link.

thunderbird five

1st May 2008, 00:00

SAAA now has a Lancair operators group, it's members are highly skilled operators and know all the tricks and traps. These guys know their ships, and stay well within the envelope of the ship, and themselves. :ok:
Specialist coaching/famil on type is available out there. One would be wise to take advantage of the wealth of Lancair experience in OZ.

Capt Wally

1st May 2008, 00:03

Some great info on this fast (literally( growing plane.
I know very little of them really but what someone said earlier in this thread was check the insurance requirements for this type of A/C. They will know (probably by pay-out experience) what there like risk wise.
Very high premiums mean one thing, high risk!

CW

Creampuff

1st May 2008, 00:49

I've got two words for you, oldm8: Glasair GIII

vans

1st May 2008, 01:46

Lots of good advice in the above posts.

I have some experience on the Lancair 360 although I don’t know how the handling characteristics compare to a Legacy, but I would imagine the same cautions could possibly apply. As you are an experienced military pilot and I assume, are cautious and listen to reasoned advice, the only detail I would emphasise is that if you insist on exploring the low speed characteristics (stalls/spins) of the aircraft, that you do it from a great height and get a thorough briefing from someone who has actually done it. The successful recovery from such manoeuvres may result from control inputs which could be quite different from those you have been use to in previous types.

philipnz

1st Aug 2008, 21:55

Another one,

Two men people died Thursday morning when a homebuilt Lancair Legacy FG crashed while attempting to land at Wittman Regional Airport.

Authorities identified the victims as the plane's owner, Roger W. Bach, 62, of Carnegie, Penn., and John S. Linden, 56, of Washington, Penn

It remains unclear who was piloting the two-seat plane when it crashed just short of the east end of the airport’s east-west runway at 9:36 a.m., said Dick Knapinski, spokesman for the Experimental Aircraft Association.
(http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/OSH0101/399991124/-1/specials&theme=OSHEAA2008&template=theme)
Knapinski said there is no indication that there was anything unusual about the pilot’s approach or the conditions during landing, although he did not know if the pilot had indicated a problem to the control tower.

Emergency responders worked behind tarps to remove the crash victims from the airplane, which landed upside down in the grass.

One Lancair pilot, who asked that his name not be used, described Lancair owners as a close-knit community.

He said pilots need to be proficient to fly the airplanes, but could not speculate on why the airplane stalled. However, he said, it is uncommon for that to happen.

“You need to have training and you need to be a proficient pilot to fly this plane,” he said.

The incident is under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration.

This was the third crash on the airport grounds this week and the only fatal crash. On Wednesday, a piper Tri-Pacer crashed while landing shortly after 1 p.m. It’s three occupants were transported to an Oshkosh hospital with minor injuries. On Sunday, a pilot was transported to a hospital away after a RANS S-6ES fixed wing single-engine plane flipped over on Sunday afternoon at the ultralight field.

Private Partz

2nd Aug 2008, 00:24

Why not go for the Cirrus SR22 G3 turbo ? At least you have got the Chute if you do enter a spin

That's the ever-present danger lurking in the Cirrus. A false sense of security and pilots thinking the ballistic parachute is a "get out of gaol" card. It's not - there have been fatal accidents with the parachute deployed. It's not put there to allow pilots to push the envelope - it's because the Cirrus is not (AFAIK) certified for spins.

Being able to pull the "big red handle" is not a substitute for proper training and good airmanship. The cockpit design of Cirrus (and Columbia) could easily deceive a pilot into thinking they are in a "car that flies" and that they can pull over to the side of the road if things go wrong.

VH-XXX

2nd Aug 2008, 01:26

I wouldn't be worried about stalling a Cirrus unless you do something really dump so the chute should never be required unless you do something retarded.

I see a Lancair spun into the ground when turning final at OskKosh yesterday. Another one bites the dust unfortunately, 2 x killed.

Brian Abraham

2nd Aug 2008, 02:39

Another for consideration
Nemesis NXT Official Internet Site (http://www.nemesisnxt.com/kit/p3-1.php)

Kulwin Park

2nd Aug 2008, 03:05

I've seen a Lancair turbine powered that lives at Maroochydore MCY (Sunshine Coast Airport). Sounds awesome & loud too - just the way real aeroplanes should sound! :E

Rego was LWL, or WLW or something like that - but definetly looks strange with big turbine up front. I've played with Lancair 320's & 360's, but I'd like to give this one a run? ... What sort of turbine's are in them??

Oz Cirrus

4th Aug 2008, 05:08

Mr Private Partz.

I suggest you look at this website: Why Cirrus - Cirrus Design Corp. (http://www.whycirrus.com)

Have a good read, following that, you can modify your post.

BTW: The FAA did not require Cirrus to demonstrate Spins, however EASA DID...and the Cirrus past the test.

- there have been fatal accidents with the parachute deployed.

You are welcome to prove this. Please research and post any real/actual events where a fatality occured in a Cirrus 'with the parachute deployed', IAW the aircraft's POH. I am not aware of any but please go ahead and prove your comment. I could be wrong.

Safety Record:

The Cirrus safety record in a snapshot of 2007 NTSB speaks for itself.

2007 US General Aviation Mishaps (NTSB)

Why Cirrus - General Aviation Safety 2007 (http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/2007-ga-safety-record.aspx)

I fully agree with the only sensible comment you made in your post;

Being able to pull the "big red handle" is not a substitute for proper training and good airmanship.

It goes without saying, the above comment is true for all types of aircraft.

Both Cirrus & Columbia (now Cessna) are both well built and safe. Like it or not Mr Partz, these types have now set the benchmark.

I look forward to your retraction or post modification.

Atlas Shrugged

5th Aug 2008, 01:02

Could it be that the Lancair has been unfortunate to end up in the hands of those not quite up to the speed of the plane???

Possibly. Just like any other high-performance aircraft - Fast plane, slow pilot = :mad: ed

Put someone who's only ever flown a 152 in a Trinidad and watch the same thing happen until they get used to the speed and the handling characteristics.

Be careful - they are as slippery as dog$hit, but fun :ok:

mattyj

5th Aug 2008, 07:43

is it experimental..modify the rudder maybe?

M14_P

6th Aug 2008, 06:19

Umm someone mentioned pulling a parachute upon entering a spin, crikey, that is a bit extreme isn't it! Get some advanced spin training if they're scary! :ok:

Cap'n Arrr

6th Aug 2008, 09:01

Nah, it's cause the certified spin recovery in the flight manual is to pull the chute. Fairly sure they never tested a opposite rudder etc recovery, although I'd be trying one before pulling the chute.

On a side note, Oz Cirrus, would you happen to sell them? I'm fairly sure there was one that went in west of Camden somewhere a year or so ago that was either fatal or a serious injury, when they had engine trouble, could have flown a forced landing but decided to use the chute. Not sure of specifics, I'm sure someone who knows their way around the ATSB database will be able to find it if they try.:ok:

Then again I could be mistaken, but I know one did crash and used the chute, and the general consensus was that they should have flown it in. I think a test pilot was killed in a chute related incident in one too. Again not sure. Sorry if I've confused everyone:O

Clearedtoreenter

6th Aug 2008, 09:54

Capt, You are right. Went in next to the M7 close to Hoxton Park and chute was deployed but did not assist much- either too late, too fast or something. - serious injuries.

This bloke Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20) has some interesting things to say about the chute.

Like

'If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead.'

and

'By contrast it seems that quite a few of the folks who have pulled the parachute and lived would very likely have either not gotten into trouble if they'd been flying a Cessna or would have been able to recover and land at an airport.'

Hummmm.

Ovation

6th Aug 2008, 12:38

From posts both in Pprune and other aviation forums which I have cut and pasted below, there seems to be a consensus that the Cirrus is definitely not for inexperienced pilots.

Some of the other less well known negatives are (1) The airframe apparently has a life of around 4000 hrs, which would make them a problematic purchase after say 3000 TTAF and (2) the Annuals are very expensive with long down-time.

It is also reported recently that there is a far higher proportion of used Cirrus aircraft for sale compared to Piper, Cessna, Mooney or Beech. It's had a negative effect on the resale value of the "other brands", but it's predicted that the used Cirrus market will soon become "saturated" with resales, and at that point the public will begin to see the Cirrus as a "disposable airplane".

Here's what pilots in other forums have had to say:

(a) Cirrus is trying to market these planes to yuppies who've never flown light aircraft before and who lost interest in old metal airplanes because they were too noisy and uncomfortable compared to a modern car.

(b) If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead. The previously mentioned owners in New York who got into a spin, for example. Either the 'chute didn't work or they couldn't get it to deploy. On February 6, 2005, an SR22 pilot crossing the Sierra reported having trouble with ice (NTSB ID: LAX05FA088), despite the fact that his plane was equipped with the TKS ice protection option. He pulled the parachute, but was apparently going too fast at the time, which resulted in the cords ripping out of the airplane and the plane and pilot slamming into a mountainside.

(c) IMHO, the only people that should really be flying the Cirrus are professional flight training schools (for people that want to fly for a living). It's not the airplane for your typical weekend warrior, by any means. And more money does not necessarily equal more sense. This airplane is quickly replacing the Bonanza for the reputation of "doctor-killer."

(d) My owner friends report that annuals have taken three to eight weeks at authorized Cirrus service centers and cost from $5000 to $10,000 for in-warranty airplanes.

(e) Yes and no- unfortunately money is allowing rich folks to buy the shiny new plane and kill themselves with their false sense of security, but those who are properly trained in the plane are no more dangerous in it as they'd be in a new 172SP. Most aircraft salesmen are more interested in getting the plane out the door and paid for than they are with ensuring proper training is given. Give it some time and I'm sure there'll be more incidents like this unfortunately- had to have something to replace the Beech.

Oz Cirrus

6th Aug 2008, 16:48

Capt. Arr.

I DO have a Cirrus Bias as I own one and looking to bring a used Turbo one in. However, you will notice I also mentioned the Columbia in the same post as being a similar Industry Leader.

Do your research on NTSB & ATSB before posting. The Cirrus Test plane was a decade ago and that aircraft DID NOT have a chute on board. The Camden Incident had the Chute attempted way outside the POH limits. Do some research, download the POH.

Clearedtoreenter:

Rather than Cherry Picking you could do with research on NTSB as well to back up your posts.

Ovation:

You are repeating Parrot Fashion exactly what Mooney and Cessna Salesmen said to me before I bought a Cirrus!. I did some research and found out what they told me about Cirrus was ALL BS.

1. Cirrus Useful life: (from www.whycirrus.com (http://www.whycirrus.com)) Why Cirrus - Useful Life & Inspections (http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/useful-life-inspections.aspx)

"At Cirrus we chose to test for a useful life of 12,000 flight hours – about 60 years of average use. Most of our major structures, however, have been tested for twice this lifetime. At Cirrus we also chose to demonstrate that the structure is good for this design life without the need for any interim, heavy inspections – with their associated cost and inconvenience.
At Cirrus we expect that, as real-life aircraft approach 12,000 hours, a further round of testing, analysis, and inspections will determine how to extend the useful life." (i.e. this is not a throw away aircraft - my comment).

2. The reason lots of Cirrus are for sale is simple: There are heaps and heaps of them. Ovation, do your research. For example; research the GAMA sales figures. Cirrus has outsold all the traditional brands except Cessna. Mooney, Piper and other combined hardly match Cirrus figures.

As for your Cherry Picked Posts: Well, They seems to be as well researched as your post is.

Again, NTSB reports show where the chute shreaded, the aircraft was already well past VNE and well past the POH Chute limits.

Ovation, Make yourself a good cup of tea, sit down and have a look at www.whycirrus.com (http://www.whycirrus.com) also download a POH, do some NTSB research rather than post fiction.

------------------------------------------------------

I would like to see positive posts about ALL General Aviation and ALL aircraft types.

I personally don't dislike any types. Of course, there are some I prefer but I enjoy flying full stop.

I applaud ALL GA success and sales of any new type or encourage any venture as long as it's positive for GA.

The petty comments and negatives on PPrune make us our own worst enemies at times.

Safe Flying to all.

VH-XXX

6th Aug 2008, 22:51

SERIOUSLY guys, many of you have absolutely NO idea about the Cirrus! Don't believe everything you hear and if you are not sure, DON'T POST !

The CIRRUS does NOT have an airframe life of 4,000TT, END OF STORY. It used to, in the very early days before it was increased to more like 12,000 hours and that will be reviewed at a later time subject to people breaking them etc.

There is a demonstrated and documented maximum chute deployment speed. If you were iced up and having trouble and need to deploy the chute I find it hard to believe that you would have trouble getting below this speed!

The Cirrus is NOT a difficult aircraft to fly. It is very easy and in fact most suitable for ab-initio training and if it weren't for the cost, this would be more common. It has stable flight characteristics, has mostly standard flight controls, auto prop, assisted mixture control and standard instruments to go with the EFIS, which you DON'T have to use to fly the aircraft!

Here'eth ends some of the myths!

Jabawocky

6th Aug 2008, 23:56

XXX :ok:

I'll second that!

I do not own one however one of my bets customers does and from the limited experience I have with them, I would agree with XXX. Some people would kill themselves with a R/C plane let alone a real one!

Having said that maintaining the things needs a fat wallet.:ooh:

J:ok:

Ovation

7th Aug 2008, 04:14

Oz Cirrus,

I stand corrected on the airframe life. It WAS 4,350 hrs on the SR22, it is now 12,000 hrs. I will attempt to research more thoroughly. You seem to be connected at the hip to Cirrus so I can understand your sensitivity on the subject.

The point you and others pro-cirrus ppruners try and make about the BRS is that it should only be used "only in accordance with the POH", and that's where I see the problem begins. If someone is in a stall/spin or other loss of control situation, do you expect them to remember exactly what the POH says and recover the aircraft to the BRS operating envelope, or simply go for the BRS activation in the hope it will save their life?

To contemplate using the BRS the pilot has most likely done something seriously wrong and unlikely to have the skills to recover from the situation.

But then if they did recover to normal flight, they wouldn't need the BRS.

TastyBurger

7th Aug 2008, 06:36

you never know when you might need a BRS
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I84d0TD0E0E)

Cap'n Arrr

7th Aug 2008, 08:26

Oz Cirrus

The Cirrus, from my experience, albeit limited, is a wonderful aircraft. The reason I replied to your post (in which I stated that I was unsure of the complete story, and perhaps someone else could fill it in) was the remarkably aggressive way in which you replied to Private Partz's post.

Private Partz did not say anything negative about the aircraft, but simply pointed out the possibility of being lured into a false sense of security. I do not believe that it warranted such an aggressive response, especially when his statement (which you quoted in your response) that:

there have been fatal accidents with the parachute deployed

is in fact true. Nothing was mentioned in the post about IAW the POH, as it seemed to be more to illustrate that it won't save you in every scenario.

Again, NTSB reports show where the chute shreaded, the aircraft was already well past VNE and well past the POH Chute limits.

This was a fatal accident with the parachute deployed, and it illustrates the point he was trying to make. It isn't a get out of jail card, it is a safety feature which must be operated within limits. I don't believe that our views here are conflicting in any way, as you have said the same thing.

I would like to see positive posts about ALL General Aviation and ALL aircraft types.

I agree 100%.:ok: But every aircraft has negative points to it as well, and it is balanced information which is most useful to those considering buying one.

As I've said, the Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft, and like all others, needs to be treated with respect, not flung around into stupid situations because "it's got a chute bro!"

Besides, isn't this thread supposed to be about the Legacy?

Runaway Gun

7th Aug 2008, 12:37

Old M8,

Obviously with your experience, the Lancair would not be a problem.
After only experience with flying the PC-9, I flew some of the older Lancair models, and it was a piece of cake. But to be fair, I was not test flying it.

Rapid rates of roll and light controls? Not really, just pleasant really, but I guess compared to the majority of Cessna and Piper production lighties, sure.

The main question for you is (and I hate to sound obvious), do you really want to actually BUILD an aircraft, or is your heart more set on owning and flying it? Apparently only a very small percentage of pilots actually complete their kit, after years of slaving away, and then sell it on. It's a huge commitment.

Anyway, some food for thought matey. Please PM me, we probably have held in similar orbits.

dunlopdangler

8th Aug 2008, 10:41

Gidday all, it has been a while since I took the time to read the pprune posts and I opened this thread with interest. Having experience with both Lancair and Cirrus (none yet with the legacy) I can honestly say that I was very comfortable with both, true neither are for everyone and from the posts here most would think that the Lancair was designed by the devil himself...not true, I have s...loads of hours on these from the 320 to the Lancair IVP turbo prop and even had a mechanical failure with one which ended up with a rather expensive ground contact sequence which I walked away from. Have stalled the two seater and was benign throughout the stall, with the spin the thing looses height rapidly and if you read the flight manuals in most other non aerobatic aircraft, spinning is a big no no as well although they have been certified to be able to be recovered with the standard recovery technique. Cirrus never completed the FAA spinning tests and the FAA accepted the BRS chute system as an equivelent level of safety (ELOS). There has never been a fatality in a cirrus from deploying the chute in a spin recovery, all fatalities have been where the aircraft has been flown beyond the pilots capabilities ie, IMC and the insuing panic deployment has seen the aircraft impacting terre firma at high velocity with the chute found some distance away. It should be pointed out that the BRS chute system is approved on all lancairs including the new Cessna 350/400 as an option although they did complete the spin test regime. But this is getting away from the original posters question about any local legacy aircraft and I too would be interested in having a closer look when one is at last flying:rolleyes::).

Oz Cirrus

8th Aug 2008, 21:08

Ovation: Thanks for the post. I guess my sensitivity grew from reading lots of inaccurate posts about the Cirrus (and other types). Lots of BS is written about aircraft, people and companies on pprune - but then again, this is a rumour site....

As for Cirrus n BRS: The training I got with the aircraft was quite compreshensive. More than what I thought I would get. Lots of decision making senarios are part of the syllabus. My concern with modern aircraft such as Cirrus and Columbia/Cessna 350, 400 is the used market. 2nd, 3rd and 4th owners fall off the training radar unless they formally seek proper training.

Capt Arr: See above. My 'aggressive' post was a built up reaction of being reading lots of BS over the years about Cirrus and other types.
I'm back on my medication now and it may be some time before i'm allowed unsupervised access to a computer again.

Safe Flying to all.

Trojan1981

2nd Oct 2009, 00:13

Oldm8

Thread mine I know.
Just wondering, have you bought or flown a Lancair yet? If so whats your opinion of the a/c?

(I saw one for sale today and it got me thinking)

oldm8

2nd Oct 2009, 09:47

Nah, havent done either. Lost the GA buzz about a year ago. I was making asking about the builder assist program for a while but lost interest when the exchange rate went to ****. Basically you go over to Mr Lancair in the US and hang out with him for a few months and build the whole aeroplane. Sounded like a good option for someone working full time who doesn't have any space, tools, experience to build a plane.

Spaz Modic

2nd Oct 2009, 11:48

Following the two Lancair fatal accidents within six days of each other in 2006 CASA bought into the issues of safety of the type. The SAAA ran a survey and one of the owners was asked to draft a training document which I believe can be obtained by contacting the SAAA. With the sort of experience oldm8 has I imagine he would transition easily as long as it is understood the Lancair is no Cessna.
Reading the accident reports from the US indicates mishandling appears to be the primary factor in the majority of cases.

ZEEBEE

4th Oct 2009, 13:30

Seems to be a lot of traffic about the Cirrus even though OldM8 specifically asked about the LancAir.

Having flown one (a 36) a couple of times doesn't make me an expert, but it seems to me that the biggest issue is the narrow envelope between the stall speed and the VFe.

Twenty knots isn't a lot and it demands a meticulous control of approach speed.
If you're up to that (and your experience resume suggests you are), then the aircraft is both manageable and a delight to fly.
Coupled with that is the reality that it is economical and will pretty much show its tail to any of the GA light twins like the Baron and 310.
So, if you only want to fly yourself and perhaps an occasional pax (who needs to a good friend) then its a top machine.