Lancair ES-P Build

[FastEddieB]

Top Cat raises an interesting point, and groundwork for another recommendation.

 

I, too, am kind of surprised that after extolling the virtues of the CTLSi as a crosscountry wonder, 100Hamburger seems to have done precious little crosscountry flying. I believe he recently said he's only flown in two states.

 

Why is that? When I got my first plane, a Cessna 150, we flew all over the east coast. I was eager to spread my wings, as it were, and fly to new places at the drop of a hat. Gain experience and see new sights. Later, in my second plane we made it as far west as Texas. And in my Tiger flew to California.

 

So, my recommendation for 100Hamburger is to build crosscountry time and experience now, in his CTLSi - or his other 4-seat unless that is, in fact, the Lancair. Anyway, plan flights to:

 

San Diego, CA

Seattle, WA

The UP of Michigan

Oshkosh - for Airventure

Owl's Head, ME

Lock Haven, PA

Kitty Hawk, NC

St. Simon's Island, GA

Key West, FL

New Orleans, LA

Galveston, TX

 

Just to name a few.

 

Since money is apparently not an object, what's stopping you? If it's worry about 100LL, that's overblown. If it's lack of desire, I'm not sure why a Lancair will suddenly make trips like this appealing if they are not now.

 

Just curious, is all.

[gbigs]

 

"As we anticipated from the beginning we have outgrown the mission and capability of the CTLSi.  We only became pilots to fly cross-country, not do breakfast runs forever."

 

  This is an interesting comment, especially since on many previous occasions you have derided other LSAs (other than FD, and your CTLSi in particular) because THEY were deemed inferior and incapable of "true cross-country flying" unlike the CTLSi.

  Other CTLSi owners have reported being able to fly extensive cross-country trips and have done it with economical fuel burns, ability to carry baggage and found it to be comfortable and fun. This isn't limited to just the CTLSi either as many similar LSAs are equally capable of more than 'breakfast runs'. So obviously the CTLSi is quite capable in this regard, a point which you have posted on numerous times.

 

  Begs the question, have you simply become bored with the CTLSi and FD, and perhaps with Sport flying in general?

 

 If the Lancair is now your airplane of choice there are a few available for sale already complete so why go the construction route? A good used model could still be outfitted to your liking, not sure about the chute as a retro-fit.

 

  What is your planned program to transition to this airplane? How long do you anticipate it will take and what do the insurance companies require of a lower time PPL pilot aged 65-67 in order to secure coverage?

 

  Is there a Lancair owners/pilots forum where you can learn about the building process, ownership and flying?

 

 

The FD CTLSi met the 'mission' of being a trainer.  After flying it for a couple of hundred hours plus we realized quickly the aircraft is a lot of work on flights lasting longer than a day and relatively slow (all LSAs are slow by requirement).  Also, the FD does react to wind and wind turbulence readily...we are looking for more stability, speed, and altitude.  Other LSAs are not the question in regard to moving to a 4-seater cross country plane.  We selected the FD CTLSi because it is by far the best LSA...

 

I am not a fan of buying used (we also bought the CTLSi new and upgraded it with the Sport Package to keep it current).   Two big reasons we decided not to go with the factory built Cirrus, which does offer a lot, is the avionics G1000...we are not fans.  Getting an all touch G3X is a big desire.  We can add a BRS chute to the Lancair given it is an incomplete kit, not a finished plane, and achieve the safety desired similar to the Cirrus.  And of course the Lancair ES-P is pressurize and the Cirrus is not, and finally the Cirrus is 2x more cash or more.

 

(side note.  we would have waited for the C4 but we believe the production of planes won't start for two years and we are low enough in the queue to likely see a three year wait).

 

The transition will be done in the plane after a professional test pilot completes the testing required to get the AC.  The insurance is an issue for all Experimental owners.  The premiums are still based on hull value.  Aircraft insurance carriers do not cover people or what happens to them in an accident. The primary rate difference have to do with having an instrument rating in any aircraft, Cirrus included capable of flying above FL18.

 

There are Lancair forums.  I am on two of them.  We also talk to Lancair owners and are able to examine their aircraft personally.  We are talking to Lancair directly and of course the ultimate expertise is the pro builder we are working with.  The company builds every model Lancair makes, including having done a half dozen Evolutions, the 300kt turbine version.

[Doug G.]

Admin, you realize that most of the issues revolve around one person?

[Admin]

Several people are involved and we are getting *VERY* tired of the situation.  There is a clutch between your mind and your mouth (or your fingers)... and those people had better begin using it...... OR ELSE!  

[Doug G.]

I would hate to see the learned, intelligent, and knowledge people on this forum sacrificed for the sake of one who has caused problems ever since he joined, and whom contributes very little of value.

[IrishAl]

I, too, am kind of surprised that after extolling the virtues of the CTLSi as a crosscountry wonder, 100Hamburger seems to have done precious little crosscountry flying. I believe he recently said he's only flown in two states.

 

 

Since money is apparently not an object, what's stopping you? 

 

Just curious, is all.

Eddie - it's a good question but I think the answer is fairly evident - people have very different motivations for doing things.  

 

I've been a fly fisherman most of my life and I've seen all sorts of reasons why people fish - some love the purity of the hunt, while some are just escaping from the wife for a few hours! And always, I've come across the tackle addict - the guy who is more interested in the tackle than in the art of fishing. He's always reading reviews and he always gets the very best kit.  

If 100 Hamburger was a fly fisherman, I'd put him in that category, as evidenced by his most recent post:

 

Getting an all touch G3X is a big desire. 

 

We can add a BRS chute to the Lancair ..........

 

And of course the Lancair ES-P is pressurize and the Cirrus is not.....

 

 

And why not?  If he loves the machinery as much as the flying itself, then he's getting what he wants out of it, and that may be different to what someone else wants out of it.

 

Having said that, I suspect that a lot of the comments in this post have been made because flying a hi-tech aircraft is inherently more dangerous than fly fishing with a hi-tech fly rod. 

[IrishAl]

I would hate to see the learned, intelligent, and knowledge people on this forum sacrificed for the sake of one who has caused problems ever since he joined, and whom contributes very little of value.

I think he has sparked some very lively and interesting debates on the forum.  

He's one of the reasons I keep coming back.

[FastEddieB]

And why not? If he loves the machinery as much as the flying itself, then he's getting what he wants out of it, and that may be different to what someone else wants out of it.

 

 

Good point.

 

One time I saw a used BMW R1100GS on a dealer's showroom floor. For those who don't know, it's an on-road/off-road adventure bike designed to go anywhere.

 

This particular one was immaculate. It was one year old. It had thousands and thousands of dollars of what we call "farkles" - crash bars, frame protectors, driving lights, carbon fiber goodies, you name it! Somebody had gone all out to make it "perfect" in their eyes.

 

What made this worth bringing up is that after one year, the bike had about 70 miles on the odometer. The fellow had apparently ridden it home and not much more. His joy was in making the bike just right to go anywhere - not in actually going anywhere. Kind of the two-wheeled equivalent of a "hangar queen". Seemed like a waste to me, but different strokes!

 

What I fear is that many of what 100Hamburger sees as reasons not to go places in his CTLSi will still apply in his Lancair. Though clearly more capable, small GA aircraft are still subject to most of the same factors. The air still has ups and downs. And though it's great being on top of the weather much of the time, to use the plane as a crosscountry machine will still often involve bumps and unpleasantness as one climbs through, descends through and crosses weather and weather systems. And icing will need to be factored in and dealt with much more of the time. Anyway, if he sees a trip to Key West as an uncomfortable, unpleasant prospect in a CTLSi, I'm not sure a Lancair will suddenly and magically make the same trip a joy.

 

As background, I do have some time in a P210* in the Flight Levels, and my oxygen-equipped Cirrus was a marvel of efficiency in the mid- and upper-teens. But flying along below 10,000' at 95k traversing the country in my turd of a Sky Arrow is every bit as much of a joy as those planes were.

 

But if the Lancair ends up being the magic carpet he expects it to be, great. My prediction, based on not much, is that as soon as he has it in hand, dissatisfaction will have him considering a TBM, Pilatus, Eclipse or Cirrus Jet. Bought new, of course!

 

All of which is great for industry numbers, if nothing else!

 

 

*Proof: https://www.flickr.com/gp/28544803@N08/B2BbR7

[Top Cat]

" His joy was in making the bike just right to go anywhere - not in actually going anywhere. Kind of the two-wheeled equivalent of a "hangar queen". Seemed like a waste to me, but different strokes!"

 

 Eddie,

 

 Agree with your post and understand your point. Thing is, having an IFR rating, and IFR qualified airplane, and the capabilities to fly in the flight levels now makes the complexity level, and the required proficiency, much more important.

 

 Not flying more than a few hours around the patch, or not flying for a little while, for a sport pilot, isn't so much of a deal. Day VFR in good weather. For those who share the more complex airspace (ATC, jets, airliners, turbo-props etc) they're assuming a higher level of competency and ability every flight. As you know it's not a matter of 'well I've flown in Class B recently" with instrument flying. The zen of IFR isn't just about keeping the wings level in the clouds, it's task management and much higher speed decision making and compliance. What you don't expect, and don't want, usually happens. For example you get a non-standard hold at a strange fix and have a few seconds to listen up, and repeat, the revised clearance. Just as you notice icing. Going with that is a new thought about fuel, weather, delays, alternate options…all whilst keeping he wings straight and level. Better with an autopilot but Murphy often says…"autopilot no-work today, you hand-fly". Jeez, where's that clearance, I have to figure a new destination, how far, how much fuel, oops…ATC giving me a new clearance and now a hand-off….did I do the last chart update?

 

​  Yeah…there's no reason it can't be done, and done well. But it requires much higher proficiency, more frequent flying, better training, constant 'recurrent' training and practice, more maintenance, etc. The speed of your brain has to match and exceed the speed of the airplane. It's about attitude…and I don't mean what's displayed on the fancy glass in front of you.

​  Cruising along 'above the weather' in the flight levels is lovely…when it all goes right. But you have to climb through the weather to get there, and descend through it to land. High altitude weather and aircraft performance comes into play. Jetstreams and greater levels of turbulence. Oh jeez, pressurization failure….I need to get down, talk to ATC. and put on my oxygen mask…and speak to ATC using the mask….

 

​  There's no free lunch. With a higher performance airplane comes the requirement for a higher performing pilot. Having the money and a the option of a chute doesn't cut it in the IFR world. You still have to DO it. Look again at the accident report posted earlier. I know you know what I mean.

 

​  It's fine to have the latest and greatest with all the options as a hangar queen, it can all go terribly wrong when the plane is wheeled out for that occasional IFR flight in the busy US system and the pilot is already behind the plane before it's out the door. There's IFR and then there's IFR with real weather, real icing, real traffic.

 

 It's not so much about the plane itself, it's about being able to fly the plane as it's designed, in the worst weather, with things going wrong with it, and safely arrive at destination.

   The IR was the hardest rating I ever got. Flying single pilot IFR in single and multi piston airplanes in the Northeast winter was the most challenging. Getting type-rated to ATP standards in a multi-engine jet was easier in many ways. Landing at KORD to Cat-IIIB minimums was easier than the taxi off the runway in search of the gate. Ever tried talking on the KORD of KLGA frequency when it's busy…like always? But it's all part of IFR flying.

 

​It's one thing to be the owner of the hangar queen. It's another to be the hangar king….and fly it to IFR standards.

[Ian]

Is the Lancair certified for flight in known icing conditions?

[FastEddieB]

Is the Lancair certified for flight in known icing conditions?

Outside of my ken, but I think that's meaningless in the Experimental Amateur Built world, since there's no one to do the "certifying" beyond the builder/owner.

[Top Cat]

I was talking to a friend about Lancairs and he sent me this article. Interesting reading:-

 

 

Many Lancair crashes are due to lack of pilot training

Review of recent accidents points to problems with amateur pilots and high speeds, not the homebuilt planes themselves, Redmond-based company and experts say

 

Peter Sachs / The Bulletin /

 

 

Published Feb 17, 2008 at 04:00AM

REDMOND — It only takes Mike Newell’s Lancair Super ES about 30 seconds to fly from one end of Redmond Airport’s 7,000-foot Runway 10 to the other.

With the plane flying at 185 mph as he makes a circuit over the airport — with the Cascades, from Mount Hood to Mount Bachelor, as backdrop — it’s clear this is a plane that likes to go fast.

It’s like driving down a narrow, tree-lined street at 65 mph instead of 25 mph.

The Super ES, a homebuilt plane made by Redmond-based Lancair, can make the flight from Central Oregon to Seattle in about an hour, only about 20 minutes longer than a commercial turboprop flight. And it uses only a little more fuel than a car for the drive.

“You really have to stay on top of it,” Newell said. He typically has to start descending 80 miles before he reaches his destination. On a trip to Portland, that means starting down almost as soon as the plane passes the crest of the Cascades.

The speed and complexity of Lancair planes can get pilots in trouble.

A review of National Transportation Safety Board records for all crashes of homebuilt Lancair planes shows not all pilots who fly the high-performance planes have the extra training they need, said Lancair officials, pilots and industry experts.

The problem more often isn’t the company’s planes themselves, but the fact that they are so fast that pilots without enough experience can have a hard time juggling everything they have to do in the cockpit.

And, pilots agree, the planes hold a certain appeal to people who might be willing to take more risks.

The official cause of the crash of a Lancair ES similar to Newell’s near Albany on Feb. 8 likely won’t be known for a year. But already pilots are talking about how it likely could have been prevented, said Gary Miller, the president of the Central Oregon chapter of the Oregon Pilots Association.

Neither of the pilots in that plane had the rating needed to fly through clouds, but the plane was flying through clouds in a region of known icing right before the crash, according to the NTSB’s early report on the crash.

“We all want to make sure that we don’t make that mistake,” Miller said.

It’s a situation that Newell says he would not allow himself to get into. Even if he had the rating pilots need to fly in clouds, he would likely avoid them completely.

“I’m super big on safety,” he said.

Newell, of Redmond, spent two years building his plane before handing it off to another builder in Central Oregon to finish the work. He had several other pilots and mechanics run it through inspections and flight tests.

Getting it built is just the first big challenge for a Lancair owner.

Joe Bartels, Lancair’s chief executive, stressed the importance of pilots sticking to the right speeds for takeoff, landing and cruising when they fly his company’s planes.

“I have thousands of hours flying these things. I enjoy them immensely, but you have to fly them by the numbers,” Bartels said.

Accident trends

 

While “certified” planes like those made by Cessna or Piper come assembled and ready to fly, homebuilt kits typically start out as a collection of parts.

Major pieces like the fuselage and engine may be mostly assembled, but owners put everything else together — flight controls, instruments, window panes, fuel tanks, hinges and wheels. The planes go through inspections and up to 40 hours of test flights once they’re built, and builders must keep meticulous records of the work they do. Professional builders and Lancair’s own facilities can help owners do some of the work.

Typically, Lancair’s customers are already pilots looking for something more powerful that can fly higher, faster and farther, Bartels and other pilots said. The planes are like the Corvettes or Ferraris of general aviation.

Lancair’s line includes a half-dozen single-engine models. Their airframes use composite carbon-fiber materials and a wing design that allows the planes to cruise as fast as 330 mph, depending on the model. The kits range from $65,000 for the two-seat Legacy to $250,000 for the pressurized Evolution. The cost of an engine adds $50,000 or more to the price of the planes.

Buyers can opt to build their planes at Lancair’s Redmond facility with the help of the company’s staff in a month or less, or work on the plane in a hangar or garage anywhere. It’s not uncommon for builders to spend more than 1,000 hours building the plane over several years.

The Bulletin’s analysis of Lancair accident records from the NTSB found that there have been 122 crashes in the United States since 1989 among the company’s nearly 1,100 homebuilt models. While 92 people were killed in those crashes, there were neither deaths nor injuries in more than 40 percent of them.

For the planes that have crashed, 10 times more are still in the air and have logged at least 200,000 hours of flight time, Bartels estimated.

Lancair’s accident numbers are higher than for Central Oregon’s other planemakers.

Two-year-old, Bend-based Epic Aircraft, which makes homebuilt planes and is starting to get its models certified so that buyers can purchase a fully assembled plane from the factory, hasn’t seen any of its planes in accidents.

Epic has 15 of its planes listed in the Federal Aviation Administration’s nationwide aircraft database. More have been sold, but they’re still being built. By contrast, there are 70 homebuilt Lancairs in Oregon alone.

Lancair received FAA approval in 1998 to build and sell finished airplanes made in its Bend plant. That part of the company changed its name to Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing in 2005, and Cessna bought Columbia late last year. Lancair International continues to make kits for homebuilt planes at its Redmond facility.

A plane that crashed Saturday at Portland International Airport was an FAA-certified plane, not a kit plane.

Regardless of maker, pilot error is the single largest cause of general aviation crashes.

The majority of homebuilt Lancair accidents, nearly 60 percent, resulted because of pilot error, the NTSB’s data indicate.

About three-quarters of all general aviation accidents were due to pilot error in 2005, according to a report prepared by the nonprofit Air Safety Foundation. The group is an arm of the pro-general aviation Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

Many of the Lancair crashes due to pilot error could have been avoided with better training or more common sense on the pilot’s part, experts agreed.

In June 2006, a pilot and both passengers were killed when their Lancair IV-P Propjet crashed as it approached the airport in Provo, Utah. It was night, and there were thunderstorms in the area and layers of broken clouds that would have made lights on the ground come in and out of the pilot’s view, the NTSB found.

While the pilot had more than 1,700 hours of total flight time and several advanced ratings, he had only 18 hours in the IV-P. And the day before, the instructor who was helping the pilot learn how to fly the IV-P told him not to fly at night or in clouds until he had at least 30 more hours of flight time in the plane.

Bartels said crashes like that should never happen.

The reasons for pilot error in Lancair crashes are similar to the causes of thousands of other general aviation crashes in the past 20 years: flying into clouds without the training to do so, flying the plane too slowly on takeoff or landing, which can cause the plane to stall, spin and crash, flipping the wrong switch in the cockpit, or forgetting to lower the landing gear.

“Whatever you fly, there’s always the baseline of good piloting that comes into play,” said Dick Knapinski, a spokesman for the Experimental Aircraft Association, a nationwide nonprofit for pilots and airplane builders.

New Lancair pilots often get as much as 20 hours of training when they first step up to one. Even still, there are noticeable differences in accident rates.

“For those higher performance airplanes in the homebuilt area, there is a slightly higher accident rate and fatal accident rate” compared with other homebuilts, Knapinski said.

Miller, the president of the regional chapter of the Oregon Pilots Association, speculated that the type of person who wants to build, fly and own a high-performance plane like a Lancair may also be the same kind of person who tolerates more risk.

“There’s a continuum of risk-taking behavior, from those who won’t go near any airport ... to those who are flying around in a powered parachute,” Miller said.

Bartels said his company is trying to discourage pilots from taking more risks than they can handle. Lancair’s newest plane will include an emergency parachute that pilots can use to get out of life-threatening situations. The parachute won’t work for everything, like if the plane is already in a high-speed dive. But dozens of pilots and passengers have walked away from what could have been deadly crashes thanks to similar parachutes installed in every Cirrus plane.

Building and testing

 

Greg Tanner, a Bend pilot since 1998 who is rebuilding his Lancair 235 and has also built a Vans RV-9A, said building his own planes gives him an intimate knowledge of how they work.

“If you know how the plane’s built and you understand aerodynamics ... you learn a lot when you’re building it,” Tanner said. “You’re going to know what to look for when you do a condition inspection.”

That’s the yearly inspection he must give his own plane, or else pay another mechanic to do it.

Doing your own inspection keeps costs down, Tanner said, since an inspection from another mechanic can easily cost $2,000.

“The good thing about an annual inspection is that, at the very least, you’ve got another pair of eyes looking over the plane,” Bartels said.

Among all Lancair accidents, about 25 percent were due to engine failure or errors made in building or modifying the plane. That’s higher than the 16 percent of all general aviation crashes due to maintenance issues, according to the 2006 report from the Air Safety Foundation.

While Lancair gives builders a 500-page manual for assembling their planes, builders are free to make modifications or install other features or equipment, whether a different engine, wingtips or lighting systems.

One pilot whose plane crashed in 2001 was using a marine engine. Another installed a crucial counterweight upside-down. Others reinstalled engine parts incorrectly, didn’t add a required fuel tank vent or didn’t tighten down nuts enough.

A handful of crashes happened on the maiden flight of a plane or immediately after significant engine work.

Bartels said Lancair requires builders to submit their finished planes to the company for a thorough nose-to-tail inspection if they want insurance on their planes.

“That doesn’t mean we’re perfect; it doesn’t mean the builder is perfect,” Bartels said. “It means that at the time we inspect, it’s safe enough and good for flight.”

And builders can call Lancair or consult groups like the Experimental Aircraft Association or other Lancair builders for help. Just like all other planes, Lancairs must get yearly inspections. But builders who make their own planes can do their own inspections, Tanner said.

Ultimately, the plane’s safety record may come down to the attitude, training and experience of builders and pilots.

Lancair partners with another company to provide training to new Lancair pilots. The Experimental Aircraft Association also has a mentoring and training program for high-performance planes.

Miller, Knapinski and Bartels agreed that more regulation of the industry won’t make it safer. But more training and a pilot community that polices itself to discourage unsafe behavior will.

“When done properly, the statistics show (flying) is about as unsafe as driving while talking on your cell phone,” Miller said.

Tanner said with the right training, flying a Lancair is exhilarating.

“There’s not a lot of planes out there that are as fast as a Lancair,” Tanner said. “They’re almost as close to a fighter plane with a prop as you can get.”

 

 

3572410

[Top Cat]

Is the Lancair certified for flight in known icing conditions?

If it IS it doesn't mean that you can merrily launch into it just because. If it ISN'T then the options for meaningful IFR are reduced significantly. Icing is that feature which always shows when you didn't expect and even when it wasn't forecast. 

[Top Cat]

While many of us with years of experience and a pocket full of ratings are recognizing our diminishing abilities and stepping down, here is a new 65 year old private jumping from basic LSA to high performance, high altitude, IFR flight. This is a receipy for disaster IMHO. Its the exact same issue as the "doctor killer" example. Again, this is my opinion. Nobody need agree.

 What I find interesting here is that the thread starter talks mostly about the airplane, avionics and pressurization. Learning to fly IFR, training in the airplane, and insurance etc seem to be added on as afterthoughts.

 

  I would think defining the mission in more detail and then evaluating the type of airplane and pilot skill-set to achieve that mission would be a better way to go, before deciding. This isn't the same as buying an LSA and learning to fly in it. IMHO.

 

  That is not to say that training for the IR, and type specific training can't be completed successfully and safely. It just seems , to me anyway, an odd way to go about. Maybe I'm just getting old.

[gbigs]

If it IS it doesn't mean that you can merrily launch into it just because. If it ISN'T then the options for meaningful IFR are reduced significantly. Icing is that feature which always shows when you didn't expect and even when it wasn't forecast. 

 

The Lancair's are not certified.  However, you can install a certified Continental engine (like the TSIO-550-E twin turbo) and can put certified avionics into them if you choose.. 

 

The Lancair ES can be outfitted with the Therm-X electric deicing product  http://www.rddent.com/products/therm_x_  We intend to add that to the plane as well...along with the non-certified Garmin G3X and the certified Garmin GTN 750.  And though the aircraft will be pressurized, we intend to have pulse fingertip oximeters and backup oxygen.

 

The accident stats for Lancair's are the most grim for the high wing-loaded Lancair IV and IV-P.   The accident stats for Cirrus SR22s were far more grim before Cirrus embarked on their pilot transition training program..

[Tom Baker]

The Lancair's are EXPERIMENTALS.  They are not certified. 

 

The issue of a airworthiness certificate makes the airplane certified, it even says so on the back of the airworthiness certificate. What the airworthiness certificate certifies is the fact that at the time of issue the aircraft met all applicable regulations for issue of the certificate. This is true for all aircraft. The requirements for issue of a airworthiness certificate are found in CFR part 21. To be issued a airworthiness certificate in the standard category the aircraft must be built under an approved type certificate.

 

What you mean to say is the aircraft does not have a airworthiness certificate in the standard category, rather it has one issued in the experimental category.

[Top Cat]

The Lancair's are are not certified.  However, you can buy a certified Continental engine (like the TSIO-550-E twin turbo) and can put certified avionics into them if you choose.. 

 

The Lancair ES can be outfitted with the Therm-X electric deicing product  http://www.rddent.com/products/therm_x_  We intend to add that to the plane as well...along with the non-certified Garmin G3X and the certified Garmin GTN 750.  And though the aircraft will be pressurized, we intend to have pulse fingertip oximeters and backup oxygen.

 

The accident stats for Lancair's are the most grim for the high wing-loaded Lancair IV and IV-P.   The accident stats for Cirrus SR22s were far more grim before Cirrus embarked on their pilot transition training program..

 Do you intend to get your instrument rating in the Lancair?

 

 Does Lancair (or anyone else) have a specific pilot transition program for the ES-P?

[gbigs]

 Do you intend to get your instrument rating in the Lancair?

 

 Does Lancair (or anyone else) have a specific pilot transition program for the ES-P?

 

We are taking the written before the plane will be finished...We will do the flight training for instruments and checkride in the plane, yes.  We are equipping it with the Garmin GTN 750.

 

Lancair only provides the kits, discount on engines and props etc, and a fast build program.  We will both do transition training with a CFII with Lancair experience that is a contractor with the pro builders we are using...

[Scrapman1959]

Congrats 100 Hamburger! We just took delivery of a new Lancair Evolution. We used Advanced Aviation in Bend to complete the AC. Total build time was 16 months because we put it on hold for the boot program to come available. The AC does have a BRS chute with straps imbedded under a thin layer of micro from the box behind the rear pressure bulkhead to the firewall engine mounts on each side. The third attach point is near the rear pressure bulkhead. One of our missions is to Cabo San Lucas from SW Wisconsin, which we have done twice with our CTLS and numerous times In our SR22 which we sold to pay for the new PT6 135a turbine. A good choice for your transition training is EPS in Bend. We are using a 14K hr professional pilot for our Evo. You have gotten a lot of advise here, I will only add this; fly your new baby VFR only until you really are at a very high comfort level with the AC. Then with a mentor pilot, do some real IFR flights and get to that same comfort level in IFR conditions "hand flying" the AC. Good luck with your build, and send me a PM if you have any questions I may be able to help with. Welcome to the Lancair Family!

[gbigs]

Congrats 100 Hamburger! We just took delivery of a new Lancair Evolution. We used Advanced Aviation in Bend to complete the AC. Total build time was 16 months because we put it on hold for the boot program to come available. The AC does have a BRS chute with straps imbedded under a thin layer of micro from the box behind the rear pressure bulkhead to the firewall engine mounts on each side. The third attach point is near the rear pressure bulkhead. One of our missions is to Cabo San Lucas from SW Wisconsin, which we have done twice with our CTLS and numerous times In our SR22 which we sold to pay for the new PT6 135a turbine. A good choice for your transition training is EPS in Bend. We are using a 14K hr professional pilot for our Evo. You have gotten a lot of advise here, I will only add this; fly your new baby VFR only until you really are at a very high comfort level with the AC. Then with a mentor pilot, do some real IFR flights and get to that same comfort level in IFR conditions "hand flying" the AC. Good luck with your build, and send me a PM if you have any questions I may be able to help with. Welcome to the Lancair Family!

 

Fantastic Scrapman...You have the big boy.  The Evolution is a 300ktas rocket with a Pratt&Whitney turbine.  A guy landed one at Carson not long ago and we got a chance to take a look.  His prior plane was a Cessna TTX and he had just bought the plane from another owner.  It was built by Performance One in Arizona, a beauty....

 

EPS is going to do the transition training, I have not been mentioning vendor names on the board other than Lancair..  The BRS install in the ES-P will likely be similar to the Evo we assume since the cabin is also pressurized.

 

We had always planned to fly VFR for a good period of time and in parallel do instrument work.  When flying the CTLSi both the wife and I are licensed pilots so we often split the workload.    The wife trained at Elite in N. Las Vegas, I trained with an individual who will also be doing both our instrument training and later will take such mentor flights after we get the rating (he is a CFII and commercial pilot flying for a partnership on a Pilatus PC-12).  Once done, we will again share the even higher workloads IFR requires.  It's nice having two pilots in the cockpit that way...

 

Thanks for your great feedback, and now I am the jealous one.  Your plane is unmatched, even by the new Cirrus SF50...  What avionics did you choose?

[FastEddieB]

As an aside, no reason at all you can't start your instrument training immediately in the CTLSi.

 

Most of the first blocks focus on basic attitude instrument flying and developing a scan. No need for any particular certified nav radios for that.

 

First, you'll stay busy and get a head start.

 

Second, your CTLSi likely costs about 1/3 what it will cost to fly the Lancair.

 

Just a thought.

[Anticept]

And you can simulate the radials by dialing in the VOR with waypoints and using the skyview HSI. Good practice, and then a few hours before checkride, use an aircraft with an actual NAV.

 

You can also buy a handheld nav radio for practice. Then go use one that has a nav radio for the last few hours.

[gbigs]

As an aside, no reason at all you can't start your instrument training immediately in the CTLSi.

 

Most of the first blocks focus on basic attitude instrument flying and developing a scan. No need for any particular certified nav radios for that.

 

First, you'll stay busy and get a head start.

 

Second, your CTLSi likely costs about 1/3 what it will cost to fly the Lancair.

 

Just a thought.

 

Good ideas.  Thanks for the advise...we figure once the Lancair gets here (Feb of next year) we will be flying it exclusively and possibly sell the CTLSi, not sure about that yet since as I mentioned before, the wife loves the plane and likes going up with her friends aboard.  And yes, is there any cheaper way to travel, it gets better gas mileage than a car!

 

Anticept.  Thanks for the radio link.  I didn't know such a product existed.  Faux instrument flying in the CTLSi would be productive and fun, I agree.  I just didn't want to put in an entire radio swap for thousands to do it.

[Scrapman1959]

All the Evos come standard now with Garmin 900 (same as G1000 basically) and the GFC700 AP which has never been sold to Experimental class AC before. It is not available for your AC. You will probably get a Tru Trak in your ES? We have a 60/40 split rear bench with 3 belts. We are expecting our tenth grandchild in September! You have a great opportunity to use CRM with your wife being a pilot as well. What year is your CTLSi, I'm ready to upgrade may 2011 CTLS with 900 hours on it.

[gbigs]

All the Evos come standard now with Garmin 900 (same as G1000 basically) and the GFC700 AP which has never been sold to Experimental class AC before. It is not available for your AC. You will probably get a Tru Trak in your ES? We have a 60/40 split rear bench with 3 belts. We are expecting our tenth grandchild in September! You have a great opportunity to use CRM with your wife being a pilot as well. What year is your CTLSi, I'm ready to upgrade may 2011 CTLS with 900 hours on it.

 

Here is what we are putting in the panel:

 

Garmin G3X PFD/MFD  10.6" 2 http://www.garmin.com/us/products/intheair/sport-aviation/g3x-touch

Garmin GSU 25 ADAHRS 2

Garmin GTN 750 RNav 1 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/avionics-safety/gps-nav-comm/gtn-750/prod67886.html

Garmin GMA 35 Audio 1 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/avionics-safety/audio-panels/gma-35/prod73817.html

Garmin Engine Sensor Kit 1 http://www.garmin.com/us/products/intheair/sport-aviation/g3x/pricing/

GRT Avionics Mini 4.3 EFIS 1 http://www.grtavionics.com/mini.html

Garmin GMC 305 Autopilot Panel 1

Garmin GSA 28 Servos (Pitch/Roll) 2

Garmin GTX 23 ES XPNDR

 

The autopilot is integrated inside the G3x.  We also got a new TSIO-550-E twin turbo and will replace one mag with a solid state ignition.

 

We took delivery of the CTLSi in Aug of 2013, it has 210 tt right now...it also has a new Sport Upgrade two months ago.  But we havn't decided if we are gonna sell it yet.