Truly terrible Lancair

[silvercity]

In another thread Oscar wrote the following:

 

"It's a serious question; the Cirrus is very much over-represented in the crash statistics by comparison with other aircraft that have fairly decent PTP performance with far more 'usual' reactions to extreme flight situations.. If one follows the history of popular aircraft with seriously negative crash statistics, one would go from the A35 Bonanza ( the "forked-tail doctor killer" ) through the early Lancairs - a truly terrible aircraft - to the Cirrus.

 

As a CAR 35 engineer, a member of my family had a fair bit to do with repairs to early Cirrus 22's. He will not fly in one - and he is a CASA-endorsed Test Pilot who had a release from DoT ( the predecessor to CASA) to fly its A35 for use as his transport when RTOA for the NSW GFA. Apart from the persistent Dutch Roll of the A35, he found it quite nice and safe to fly; you may make your own judgement of his thoughts on the Cirrus from that.. He did take a flight or two in an early Lancair ( 320 or 360, from memory) and refused to fly any more than a circuit. They are that bad; the Cirrus is NOT that bad but it still has more than its fair share of issues."

 

I would be very interested in other opinions about the Lancair 320/360, preferably from first hand experience.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[winsor68]

In another thread Oscar wrote the following:"It's a serious question; the Cirrus is very much over-represented in the crash statistics by comparison with other aircraft that have fairly decent PTP performance with far more 'usual' reactions to extreme flight situations.. If one follows the history of popular aircraft with seriously negative crash statistics, one would go from the A35 Bonanza ( the "forked-tail doctor killer" ) through the early Lancairs - a truly terrible aircraft - to the Cirrus.

 

As a CAR 35 engineer, a member of my family had a fair bit to do with repairs to early Cirrus 22's. He will not fly in one - and he is a CASA-endorsed Test Pilot who had a release from DoT ( the predecessor to CASA) to fly its A35 for use as his transport when RTOA for the NSW GFA. Apart from the persistent Dutch Roll of the A35, he found it quite nice and safe to fly; you may make your own judgement of his thoughts on the Cirrus from that.. He did take a flight or two in an early Lancair ( 320 or 360, from memory) and refused to fly any more than a circuit. They are that bad; the Cirrus is NOT that bad but it still has more than its fair share of issues."

 

I would be very interested in other opinions about the Lancair 320/360, preferably from first hand experience.

 

Cheers.

I would guess Oscar's relation was referring to the early Lancair 2.. series...which had a smaller elevator and other deficiencies?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

They race Lancairs and Glasairs at Reno and are getting 400mph laps out of them. Pretty easy to understand how they could be a handful.

 

 

[jakej]

Which one FT ?

 

How much flying have you done in ANY of those 2 ? Personally, I have approx 2000 hrs in one of those types & AM still alive - at least when i just checked:oh yeah:

 

 

[kaz3g]

Both Lancair and Glassair have a number of different models and it is therefore difficult to ascribe issues pertaining to them generally.

 

However, according to CASA data researched by Shine Lawyers..."statistics published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in 2006 confirmed there were 42.5 accidents per 100,000 hours flown in sport aircraft compared with 16.8 accidents per 100,000 hours flown in general aviation (light) aircraft."

 

https://www.shine.com.au/service/aviation-law/atsb-releases-shepparton-lancair-legacy-crash-reports/

 

While the sport aircraft record has improved since 2006 that statistic still gives us a little food for thought, or ought to.

 

I knew the pilot killed in the Legacy crash at Shepparton and did enough research following it to be convinced that some of the early types (at least) had a strikingly high fatal accident rate allegedly due to insufficient tail surface areas. They look, and are very quick machines and I've been around long enough to know they would be too much for my skills.

 

Kaz

 

 

[jakej]

"Both Lancair and Glas air have a number of different models and it is therefore difficult to ascribe issues pertaining to them generally". One S - your spelling of this is a common mistake

 

Much more importantly there is only one model of Glasair that is potentially more difficult in handling & that is the early G1, ALL the rest are ok.

 

Lancair - IMO these are/were bad due to the very small 'wetted' area which, although it enabled high speeds, caused issues with handling if you get behind the power/speed curve or get distracted you will have an accident. Most high performance aircraft are unforgiving of mistakes & inattention.

 

Aircraft like Lancairs & Aerostars are not for the pilot who seldom flies - they need to fly often to stay current, IMO.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think the real problem is that not many pilots have experience in aircraft that pull 250 knots, stall at 65 KN+ dirty and have a best glide faster than my Auster's Vne.

 

"Glassair" was all my iPad's work...

 

What are you flying?

 

Kaz

 

 

[jakej]

I agree, that's my point too.

 

Auto correct - don't you just love it.

 

Besides owning/flying a Glasair 2 I've 80 hrs in a "real " (tailskid, no brakes) DH82, plus hrs in most of the Rv's & many other types.

 

Maybe the way to go would be to seriously encourage (not more regulation) the fitment of AOA (Angle of Attack) units, they are reasonably priced & MUCH more useful than a simple stall warning vane. For those that have the more popular EFIS system it usually is a simple install &....., wait for it, you can also add a "Stick Shaker"for a reasonable price $us119.

 

 

[kaz3g]

There is a II that comes into Shepp sometimes but I don't know the rego.

 

Glasair seem to have a much better record that the Lancair.

 

I like the Sportsman. Jimmy Williams at Albury picked up one that got a bit wet in a deck-stowed container and was claimed on insurance. It came up really well.

 

Kaz

 

 

[jakej]

The Sportsman is a great high wing aircraft.

 

I didn't want to get into a discussion about one aircraft being better than another, just agreeing & stating that the 'higher' performance aircraft like the Lancair is not for everyone.

 

The RV7, 9 &10's & Glasair 2's are about equal in handling, no vices.

 

 

[Oscar]

The original Lancair 2XX series could not get accepted in Australia until there was a serious modification to the tailfeathers. Even AFTER that, in the CASA evaluation report, Keith Englsman found they went to a wing-drop of 70 degrees in a stall.

 

 

[jakej]

Maybe he'll tell you about the time one went inverted in the circuit with him after doing aft C of G loading tests ?

 

 

[Oscar]

Maybe he'll tell you about the time one went inverted in the circuit with him after doing aft C of G loading tests ?

Not sure that was in his official test report! Keith is a bloody fine test pilot, possibly the best we have ever had after Randy Green.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Interesting comments in this http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/625511/ar2007043_1.pdf

 

It refers to the report in Aircraft but I can't find a copy of it on the Internet.

 

Kaz

 

 

[djpacro]

The original Lancair 2XX series could not get accepted in Australia until there was a serious modification to the tailfeathers ....

Some good data related to that here: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm

Not sure that was in his official test report! Keith is a bloody fine test pilot, possibly the best we have ever had after Randy Green.

Agreed, and Chris Furse was up there too.

[Oscar]

There was also controversy regarding a tail flutter condition caused by fuselage twisting for the 'large-tail' 32X Lancairs that went on for quite some time ( see: http://www.lancair.net/flutter.html ) and became fairly acrimonious, with the designer, I think, starting to threaten legal action in the end (though I am not sure about that). I never had the interest to follow up what eventual action(s), if any, that produced.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think a very thorough evaluation was done in the US after some accidents. ( I don't have a link) I have had several friends who have owned them. (Lancairs) including a pressurised turboprop.

 

They are not for people without a fair knowledge of critical aircraft handling. Not suitable for off field landings either. Brakes/wheels are small. It's a high performance plane, mate. Nev

 

 

[planedriver]

Just love the look of this one seen in a hangar at Cessnock.

 

A very slippery machine, for a pilot with the necessary skills to handle it safely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Firstly, there was no issue with certification of lancairs in oz.. There was however issues between avtex and dot/caa/casa which ended up being dropped after going to tribunal. This costed a lot of builders having to spend money in proving flight tests to keep them on the air abiet with a 188kt speed restriction.

 

This was all cleared at the end of casa action against Avtex..

 

The tail flutter was a by product of some builders techniques in attaching the tail strake section to the fuse and there are truckloads of info on this that concerned some early US 320 builds. The small tail was designed for the 235 and when KE did some flight testing on behalf of the regulators he waffled on a bit about the light contol loads. The larger "mark 2" tail was a design colaboration to improve stability for the higher HP done by Graham Swanell.

 

Whilst the Lancair is not everybodies cup of tea, I enjoyed flying them and with about 800 hours in them PIC, found them one of the most easiest and delightful planes to fly even with the odd emergency..

 

 

[dutchroll]

Just love the look of this one seen in a hangar at Cessnock.A very slippery machine, for a pilot with the necessary skills to handle it safely.

A little disappointing you didn't get a shot of the beautiful orange & blue beast next to it.......

 

 

[turboplanner]

Which one FT ? How much flying have you done in ANY of those 2 ? Personally, I have approx 2000 hrs in one of those types & AM still alive - at least when i just checked:oh yeah:

That's about exactly the hours of the pilot who spun one in during a routine final turn in Sydney - that one shook me; if he could do it what chance would I have?

 

 

[Oscar]

If you are thinking of the accident to ZNZ, that happened actually at around 400 feet on climb-out from a touch-and-go. The report is: atsb.gov.au/media/24318/aair200601688_001.pdf

 

Also in that report - and germane to the Jabiru thread, is the following: The occurrence of two fatal Lancair accidents in densely populated areas within five days of each other prompted a review of the operation of amateur-built aircraft in Australia.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm going to a talk next week by a chap who has circumnavigated the globe via the poles in a IV. It's certainly not a plane to outland in the bush. You don't want a suss motor in it either. As far as the airframe goes most who have them are acquainted with the history, and the design features. It's been examined a few times by the authorities and come out fairly clean. If you aren't up to flying one, DON'T. ( But that applies to a lot of things a bit out of the ordinary doesn't it?) Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you are thinking of the accident to ZNZ, that happened actually at around 400 feet on climb-out from a touch-and-go. The report is: atsb.gov.au/media/24318/aair200601688_001.pdf

 

Also in that report - and germane to the Jabiru thread, is the following: The occurrence of two fatal Lancair accidents in densely populated areas within five days of each other prompted a review of the operation of amateur-built aircraft in Australia.

Yes, that was the one, I got the manoeuvre wrong; Ron Bertram, President of AOPA, 1728 hours experience.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

There is an element of it that is related to pilot ability, but as others have said, there is another part that is pure physics. There are issues to do with pilot ability, but I would think that someone of a decent skill level, who flies often enough and has an AoA fitted isn't going to spin it in turning base on a regular flight. The reason why a G3 or Lancair IV aren't my cup of tea relate purely to the things you have no control over. At the end of the day, we're talking about a plane that stalls at 60+ knots, usually with piston engines that have been tuned up to all buggery to get every possible HP out of them. Those two things don't go together in MY opinion. I would also explain these basic principals to any friends of family that were thinking of flying in one. That is, there is experimental and then there is experimental. Flying a carbon cub over a farm paddock is totally different in risk profile when compared to flying a G3 out of Wedderburn.

 

This was my whole issue with the Jabiru saga. There is no effort at all to educate passengers about the specific risk of different aircraft or even airports or flight conditions, yet because one engine fails 6 times every 10000 hours compared with another which only fails 4 times every 10000 hours, we need to get passengers to sign release forms? I would think that a lawyer would have a field day now that this precedent has been set. You mean to tell me that you warned these passengers, but not these ones (who are now dead) even though the risks were well documented.

 

Note that I am not arguing that there should be mandatory passenger disclosure around every type of aviation, rather the opposite. It's up to the pilot to consider all aspects of a flights risk profile and make sure that the passengers are comfortable accepting it.