Lancair ES-P Build

[Top Cat]

" Similarly, if headed to points north there's MOGAS at Mountain Empire in VA and if points SE, in Barnwell, SC."

 

I think Suffolk VA KSFQ has mogas on pump too.

[Ed Cesnalis]

What one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

 

While a longer gliding distance (not slope) has an obvious advantage, high altitude flying brings along an entirely new set of risks.

 

You will be trained in those as part of the required high altitude endorsement, and you will see that in and of itself there's nothing inherently "safer" about flight in the flight levels in a piston single. In fact, it's a far more hostile environment than flight below 10,000 feet.

 

And ice is a whole 'nother thing. The deice system in your plane will not be certified nor guaranteed to perform adequately at various icing intensities. There's an enormous amount of testing to be certified for FIKI, and even then pilots know to avoid ice whenever they can.

 

 

 

When flying a turbo in the far west you can realize the advantages of big terrain clearance and being able to go over weather even without an IR.  Cruising VFR below FL 180.  When below 10,000 is underground cruising at 16,500 can be ideal.

[kwmoore]

Kevin, I have been in a Peterson Stol piloted by the man himself. Very impressive. One thing I'm still wondering about though......if the big fan out front stops turning, what happens to that 36 knt stall speed? Is the prop wash creating some lift off the canard? I bet a CT stalls 10 knts slower with the prop stopped than your Peterson stol. Just a guess......because it's hard to believe that little canard wing can create a lot of lift in 36 knt air passing over it, versus the gale off the prop. In other words.....what do you stall at with the prop not turning? BTW, I still want want a Peterson stol 182, it is just too much fun.

 

Indeed some airflow over the canard really helps but it doesn't take much--about 14"-15" mp as I recall can actually get the stall speed way down--below the quoted 31 kt for the Katmai or 35 kt for the 260se/stol (now called the "Kenai" with the 300 hp engine).  

 

I had trouble getting the plane to stall at all with power--it just held the high pitch attitude and mushed.  It was fun trying to do power-on stalls during BFRs with CFIs who were unfamiliar with the type and get their reaction along the lines of, "OK Jeez, just do what you need to do to make it stall, eh?!"

 

I have zero experience flying the CT so I'm not qualified to make any comparison!   Nor do I wish to derail the present thread.  Happy to talk more offline.  

[kwmoore]

Sooooo, Kevin, you have a choice of a CT or your stol 182 with engine out, which one in the hands of equally skilled pilots is safer landing off field? This was my point to Hamburger who says his CT is not as safe as his ES. I again make the claim, I don't know of anything safer with the exception of Cubs, Just AC etc, which do not work for cross country flying, than a CT. I suppose Tecnams high wing and a few other well built Lite Sports would equal the CT.

 

Honestly I am in no way qualified to render a judgment--haven't flown the CT.  

 

If it were me at the controls, I would be using BRS in either plane unless I could with 100% certainty glide to a known benign landing area, preferably a runway.  I don't care about "saving the plane," that's what insurance is for.  Saving the occupants with minimal chance of injury is paramount.  I once asked an insurance agent about insurers' view of using BRS (CAPS in Cirrus): his response was, "By all means use it--we'd rather deal with you than with your estate!"  

[FastEddieB]

There's a thread over on COPA by a very dissatisfied owner titled "Cirrus + Service Center = $22,000 annual".

 

I mention it because its a tale of woe begun by a (slightly) malfunctioning waste gate issue on the turbo.

 

To read or contribute to it would require a $65 membership to the forum, but I think it would be money well spent to immerse oneself in what's actually involved in maintaining a "complex" aircraft with a turbo-normalized IO550 Continental. Lots of good advice there.

 

Anyway, not for the faint of heart!

[Anticept]

Anytime you put a turbo on something, double the maintenance. That's the rule of thumb.

 

Turbos themselves, installed, cost as much as a new engine.

[gbigs]

There's a thread over on COPA by a very dissatisfied owner titled "Cirrus + Service Center = $22,000 annual".

 

I mention it because its a tale of woe begun by a (slightly) malfunctioning waste gate issue on the turbo.

 

To read or contribute to it would require a $65 membership to the forum, but I think it would be money well spent to immerse oneself in what's actually involved in maintaining a "complex" aircraft with a turbo-normalized IO550 Continental. Lots of good advice there.

 

Anyway, not for the faint of heart!

 

The Cirrus SR22T uses the TSIO-550-K engine with a turbo-normalizing kit added to it.  Some say turbo-normalizing is kinder and less problematic since less air pressure is developed and forced into the engine. 

 

The TSIO-550-E engine is not turbo-normalized. The newer turbos being used on today's TSIOs from Continental have automatic wastegate tech which alleviates a lot of the trouble pilots had managing the wastegates by hand often leading to over heating issues.

 

The Lancair ES-P has a great safety record.  Google the model, you won't see many for sale, and you won't see many complain about the plane.  Unlike the IV and IV-P, and agreed the Cirrus SR22T.

[FastEddieB]

Trying to figure out your reasoning. You may have it backwards.

 

You realize that generally turbo-normalizing produces less stress on an engine, not more, right? It does so by not producing more than SL pressure, just maintaining it to a higher altitude.

 

I think that was the case for the original Cirrus Turbos, modified by TAT. Don't think that's the case on the SR22T, though I'm not 100% sure.*

 

What's the maximum boost allowed in the TSIO-550-E in your installation?

 

 

*Just looked it up and found the answer here:

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2010/July/1/Cirrus-SR22T

 

36.5" of boost - much more than the TN Cirrus. Good explanation of the difference in the linked article.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

The Lancair ES-P has a great safety record.  

 

I guess it depends on how you define safety.  In the NTSB accident database, I did a search for "Lancair" and one for "Flight Design"

 

The number of results returned were almost identical (51 accidents for Lancair, 53 for FD).

 

Almost half of the Lancair accidents (25) resulted in fatalities.  Of the Flight Design accidents, one involved a fatality, and even in that accident one of the occupants survived.

 

The FAA registry database lists 277 total Lancair aircraft registered, and 373 for Flight Design.  So the FD has a lower incidence of accidents overall for the number of registered airframes than the Lancair (14.% for FD, 18.4% for Lancair), and the chances of a fatality if an accident does occur is 24 times higher in the Lancair (1.96% versus 47.1%).

 

You could try to make the claim that the safety comes from cruising higher, above the weather and terrain, but a total of five fatal accidents, or 20% of the total, are listed by the NTSB as occurring during the cruise phase of flight.  The one FD fatal occurred on final and not in cruise.

 

There are lots of reasons to own a Lancair...I'm not convinced increased safety is one of them. 

[Ian]

Careful Andy - you're confusing the argument with facts!!

[WmInce]

I guess it depends on how you define safety.  In the NTSB accident database, I did a search for "Lancair" and one for "Flight Design"

 

The number of results returned were almost identical (51 accidents for Lancair, 53 for FD).

 

Almost half of the Lancair accidents (25) resulted in fatalities.  Of the Flight Design accidents, one involved a fatality, and even in that accident one of the occupants survived.

 

The FAA registry database lists 277 total Lancair aircraft registered, and 373 for Flight Design.  So the FD has a lower incidence of accidents overall for the number of registered airframes than the Lancair (14.% for FD, 18.4% for Lancair), and the chances of a fatality if an accident does occur is 24 times higher in the Lancair (1.96% versus 47.1%).

 

You could try to make the claim that the safety comes from cruising higher, above the weather and terrain, but a total of five fatal accidents, or 20% of the total, are listed by the NTSB as occurring during the cruise phase of flight.  The one FD fatal occurred on final and not in cruise.

 

There are lots of reasons to own a Lancair...I'm not convinced increased safety is one of them. 

 

Excellent post Andy.

Not taking sides here at all, I love the Lancair, but thanks for doing the leg work on the safety aspect.

Waiting for the rebuttal.

[FlyingMonkey]

Put another way, if you consider that around 1/2 of the 18.4% of Lancair airframes that are involved in accidents end up in fatalities, you can ballpark it and figure if you fly a Lancair that there is a 9.2% chance you will die in your airplane.

 

EDIT:

 

Doing the same percentage analysis on FD airplanes show a 1/51 chance of a fatal crash of the 14.2% of airframes involved in accidents, leading to FD pilots having a (.142 / 51) = 0.027% chance of dying in their airplane. 

 

I like my odds here.

[FlyingMonkey]

Excellent post Andy.

Not taking sides here at all, I love the Lancair, but thanks for doing the leg work on the safety aspect.

Waiting for the rebuttal.

 

I love the Lancair too, but there is no denying it is a high-performance, demanding airplane that requires very careful attention.  It's probably not different in that way from the other really fast airplanes with high wing loading and "fast" wing designs, like the Columbia/Corvalis, Glasair, etc.

[gbigs]

I guess it depends on how you define safety.  In the NTSB accident database, I did a search for "Lancair" and one for "Flight Design"

 

The number of results returned were almost identical (51 accidents for Lancair, 53 for FD).

 

Almost half of the Lancair accidents (25) resulted in fatalities.  Of the Flight Design accidents, one involved a fatality, and even in that accident one of the occupants survived.

 

The FAA registry database lists 277 total Lancair aircraft registered, and 373 for Flight Design.  So the FD has a lower incidence of accidents overall for the number of registered airframes than the Lancair (14.% for FD, 18.4% for Lancair), and the chances of a fatality if an accident does occur is 24 times higher in the Lancair (1.96% versus 47.1%).

 

You could try to make the claim that the safety comes from cruising higher, above the weather and terrain, but a total of five fatal accidents, or 20% of the total, are listed by the NTSB as occurring during the cruise phase of flight.  The one FD fatal occurred on final and not in cruise.

 

There are lots of reasons to own a Lancair...I'm not convinced increased safety is one of them. 

 

You missed the point made earlier.  The Lancair accidents are for the IV and IV-P...you need to go by model, not manufacturer...  the difference between the Lancair models is large...

[FlyingMonkey]

You missed the point made earlier.  The Lancair accidents are for the IV and IV-P...you need to go by model, not manufacturer...  the difference between the Lancair models is large...

 

I didn't miss the point, I disagree with it.  I'm sure a Lancair ES-P is far more similar to a Lancair IV-P than to a CTLS.  That skews the probable safety data toward the bad side of the curve between the two aircraft types.

 

In fact, both the IV-P and ES-P both use the same airfoil (McWilliams RXM5-217 airfoil at the wing root, transitioning to a NACA 64-212 at the wingtip) and have the same wingspan of 35 feet, 6 inches.  They have the same length of 25 feet, zero inches.  

 

Even the FAA says that the Lancairs have a "disproportionate number of fatal accidents":  http://blog.aopa.org/leadingedge/?p=58  How is this tidbit for eye-opening:

 

"Lancairs make up just over 3% of the amateur built ( AB) fleet yet have over 10% of the fatal AB accidents."

 

Ouch, ten percent of ALL fatal E-AB fatalities are in Lancairs!  Does that mean they are not safe?  Nope.  It does mean that you'd better be on your freakin' game every time you get in one.

[gbigs]

I didn't miss the point, I disagree with it.  I'm sure a Lancair ES-P is far more similar to a Lancair IV-P than to a CTLS.  That skews the probable safety data toward the bad side of the curve between the two aircraft types.

 

In fact, both the IV-P and ES-P both use the same airfoil (McWilliams RXM5-217 airfoil at the wing root, transitioning to a NACA 64-212 at the wingtip) and have the same wingspan of 35 feet, 6 inches.  They have the same length of 25 feet, zero inches.  

 

Even the FAA says that the Lancairs have a "disproportionate number of fatal accidents":  http://blog.aopa.org/leadingedge/?p=58  How is this tidbit for eye-opening:

 

"Lancairs make up just over 3% of the amateur built ( AB) fleet yet have over 10% of the fatal AB accidents."

 

Ouch, ten percent of ALL fatal E-AB fatalities are in Lancairs!  Does that mean they are not safe?  Nope.  It does mean that you'd better be on your freakin' game every time you get in one.

 

Disagreement is fine.  Just wanna make sure the info on the aircraft differences is on the same page.  The IV has a wing area of 98sq feet, the ES 140sq feet.  The wing loading for the IV is 36lbs/sqft  the ES 25lbs/sqft.  The gross weight is the same for both, 3550lbs. The IV carries 90 gallons.  The ES 105 gallons.

 

Trying to spread the IVs problems across all Lancairs is the core of our disagreement it appears.  That's like trying to spread the problems in the GM Corvair to all GM product (although GM does make some crappy products, not all of their models are death traps like the Corvair was).

[FastEddieB]

How's the build going?

 

Interesting thread with some relevance active on the Pilots of America site:

 

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1812206#post1812206

 

Post #59 seemed pertinent.

[gbigs]

How's the build going?

 

Interesting thread with some relevance active on the Pilots of America site:

 

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1812206#post1812206

 

Post #59 seemed pertinent.

 

Everything is lined up.  #59 is one way to look at my approach, agreed. 

 

But I can afford a 'bloated' factory built plane also...my choosing the Lancair and adding the parachute to it is my way of getting a better Cirrus SR22T - the fact it will also cost less is a plus, true.

 

The Cirrus has the old G1000 in it, no ADS-B solution, is not tailored to fit my body, has a compromised engine in the 'K' version, is not pressurized, and has a clumsy deicing setup with the TKS fluid design, and is less robust as a normal class versus utility class build.

[FlyingMonkey]

I think the point of that POA thread is that the contract build method is not in compliance with E-AB build requirements, and could get an airplane disqualified from E-AB status.  Which would leave either testing to part 23 standards or Experimental Exhibition as the only options. 

[FastEddieB]

How is the build going?

 

Any idea when your new plane will be flying, if it isn't already?

 

Don't leave us hanging - regular updates would be nice.

[FastEddieB]

Again, any update?

[gbigs]

Again, any update?

 

The project status is over on Pilots Of America site....

[FastEddieB]

The project status is over on Pilots Of America site....

Do you have a link?

[AZAV8OR]

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.

Totally agree!

[gbigs]

Again, if you want the full discussion and status of the project, go over to Pilots Of America...the details on instrument rating progress, parachute design, interior modifications, electronic ignition, prop governor & prop selection, Garmin G3X panel and paint scheme are covered.