Pirep Lancair IV

"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Right now my partners and I are figuring where we want to go next.


Are you talking about buying one, or building one?

Not sure, just window shopping right now. I was shocked at what I read. I
thought it was a typo at first. I've been reading about the building
experiences, they seem to take much more time than I could put into one at
this point in my life. Not sure I'd want to be without a pony for 5-8
years. :-)

Thanks for the info though.

Not sure it would take that long, depending on how "handly" (and patient)
you are, and unless you were going to do it yourself, on weekends...

http://www.lancair.com/Main/iv_ivp.html

Also, check that earlier post with a used one for sale on ASO.

Kevin,

they seem to take much more time than I could put into one
at this point in my life.


What's that old saying: If you want to build a plane, do that. If you
want to fly a plane, buy!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Kevin Clarke wrote:

Not sure, just window shopping right now. I was shocked at what I
read. I thought it was a typo at first. I've been reading about the
building experiences, they seem to take much more time than I could
put into one at this point in my life. Not sure I'd want to be without
a pony for 5-8 years. :-)

Thanks for the info though.

http://www.legendaircraft.net

Lanny helps knock some of the build time off...

http://www.legendaircraft.net/New%20Owner.htm

The mentioned Lancair Super ES was for a friend of mine. Its approach
speed was about what you quoted...

Kevin,

Can anybody speculate why this 300kt aircraft is not being certified and
remains in the X category?


You mentioned one of the reasons yourself: Certified aircraft need a lower
stall speed than the Lancair IV can achieve.

You'll have to look at the Columbia to see what changes are required to
make a Lancair certified.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:57 -0400, Kevin Clarke
wrote:

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Kevin Clarke" wrote in message
...

Anybody fly one of these?



Flew a P model built by a retired A&P from Lockheed a couple years back.

Incredible machine. Handles like a dream and faster than a scalded greyhound
:~)


Thanks Matt. Did you land it? It looks like about 80kts over the fence,
is that for real?

80 over the fence isn't much different than 70, then 60, than 50. You
flare and let it settle. If you want fast over the fence AND a breath
taking rate of descent, land a Glasair III with nearly 30# per sq ft
of wing loading. :-))


Can anybody speculate why this 300kt aircraft is not being certified and

One word. Columbia. It is fixed gear and still hauls!

remains in the X category? Right now my partners and I are figuring
where we want to go next.

To build a P model you'll end up with between a quarter and
half million in it. A certified one would probably be expensive for a
4 passenger plane.

Roger (K8RI)

KC

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
80 over the fence isn't much different than 70, then 60, than 50. You
flare and let it settle. If you want fast over the fence AND a breath
taking rate of descent, land a Glasair III with nearly 30# per sq ft
of wing loading. :-))

Not so, energy goes up rapidly with speed and you aren't done landing until
you have found a way to dissipate all of it. Every pilot should know and
understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass times Energy Squared. Assume an
all-up weight for your plane, and do the math using different approach speeds
and you will see the importance of approach speed.

Vaughn

Whoa, there Einstein, I don't think that's correct. The real formula is:

Energy = Mass times the Speed of Light Squared.

Unless you're looking for the formula for kinetic energy, which is:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 times Mass times Velocity Squared, where the energy is
in joules, the mass is in kilograms, and the velocity is in meters per
second. Yeah, I know, velocity is a vector, not a scalar, but let's keep it
simple here.

-Mike

"Vaughn Simon" wrote:
Every pilot should know and understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass
times Energy Squared. Assume an all-up weight for your plane, and do the
math using different approach speeds and you will see the importance of
approach speed.

Vaughn

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:22:29 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
.. .
80 over the fence isn't much different than 70, then 60, than 50. You
flare and let it settle. If you want fast over the fence AND a breath
taking rate of descent, land a Glasair III with nearly 30# per sq ft
of wing loading. :-))

Not so, energy goes up rapidly with speed and you aren't done landing until

The thing is you are landing an airplane. Wheter it be 30 or 130 MPH
the function is the same and as long as I have enough runway I don't
care.

you have found a way to dissipate all of it. Every pilot should know and

I still maintain if you fly it properly there is little difference "to
the pilot" wheter it's 30 or 130.

understand this simple formula: Energy = Mass times Energy Squared. Assume an
all-up weight for your plane, and do the math using different approach speeds
and you will see the importance of approach speed.

The importance of "speed down final" (approach speed is something else
and considerably faster in many planes) is to fly it properly for the
specific aircraft being flown whether it is 30 or 130. Fly it properly
and you'll do well. Fly it wrong and you are likely to break
something.

And I don't care whether it is 30 or 130. To me it makes no
difference. I know pilots who wounldn't transition into a twin
because of the landing speed. Yet I'd say over 75% of the landings I
see in certificated singles are way too fast. Actually it's probably
more than that as most pilots of singles land too fast.

Roger (K8RI)


Vaughn

"Kevin Clarke" wrote:

Anybody fly one of these?



In my dreams...



--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Clarke" wrote:

Anybody fly one of these?



In my dreams...


And you built one in your nightmares? :~)