1. I've never seen a Lancair-IV in person but it
certainly looks like a beautiful airplane. After all the
hype is it really the best in single engine four seaters? In
other words if I had $150,000, why should I buy a Lancair IV
instead of its equivalent out there in the marketplace?
First of all, There IS no speed equivalent for less than
a million!! Second, you will need the better part of
$400,000 to properly equip and professionally finish a show
quality Lancair IV-P.
Now, the why's;
There is absolutely no other four place piston airplane that
can approach the altitude, speed and range of this one. The
Reno air races are proving the claims.
2. You've had a lot of hours flying the Lancair IV. What do
you personally really like about it? What really bugs you
about it?
I like the airplane because it is fast- beautiful- and
flies like a fighter. What I don't like is giving up the
Navajo interior room, and air stair door. I'm sorry it boils
down to "room vs speed" but I find I usually fly with one
other person and only rarely have four.
3. You have probably found some problems, bugs,
idiosyncrasies in the Lancair IV, has the company for the
most part corrected them in there ensuing kits sold? This
relates to the building process as well as the flying
characteristics.
The new molds are much improved over the early ones. They
had problems the builder was expected to correct. Early
difficulties with-- control hinges-flap tracks- P- doors--
have been engineered out of the picture with the Fast
Builds.
4. OK, I've got the time, I've got the money, I've got
permission from my wife, realistically how much time does it
take to build a Lancair IV?
You can build one in less than six months, with a little
help. Avionics, paint and upholstery might (will!) slow you
down. However, it might take as much as 10 years or longer,
depending upon how little time and money you invest. For
example, you can go to Redmond, Oregon and take delivery of
the wings (Fast Build) and using the factory "assist"
program, you can complete the wings and tail, ready for the
paint shop in a week. Price, $4000. Continued assistance ia
avialable for as many weeks as needed. Even up to first
flight. The Fast Build engine installation, and pressurized
door is also now available.
The current factory estimate for a completed the
Lancair IV- P. is over $310,000. And that does not include
any supplemental labor. I doubt that one could be finished
today, with a good avionics package, decent paint and
upholstery for much less than $400,000.
Why do I like it?? Here's a couple reasons:
If you were to fly at flight level 230, with the cabin at
8500 feet and hear this comment:
"Zero DQ, turn right
20 degrees, you are over taking a King Air at 12 o'clock."
"Sir, do you have
time for question? "
"Just what is a
LNC4? "
What kind of engine
you have??"
I find nearly every IFR flight results in at least one
comment from ATC about the speed or other characteristic
(climb - pressurization etc. etc.).
And seeing ground speed readouts, with tail winds, of over
three hundred fifty knots, (I have seen over 400Kts).
-- Flying from Los Angeles to Daytona Beach, Florida in 6:20
(1 stop),
-- Flying from Fargo ND, to Daytona Beach Florida in 4:40
minutes (nonstop), landing with 18 gallons fuel. My cruise
speed was 282 knots. Actually with no tailwind. Burning
16-18 gallons per hour.
Tell me, what other aircraft can do that on 20 gallons per
hour? And carry 4 people??
"SHOULD I BUILD A LANCAIR??"
(Letter from a Owner/builder to a interested person who
asks the question)
"Hello Rick:
If your objective is to get to from point A to B and save
time, buy another Mooney. You would have to do a lot of
flying to make up for the 3000 +- hours building time. There
is no rational analysis that justifies building your own
airplane on a time/cost basis. Don't even try.
Now if your objective is to build an airplane and suffer the
agony and ecstasy of that experience then you should build
the best airplane you can afford. Building an airplane is
the guy equivalent of pregnancy and childbirth except that
building an airplane takes longer and there is more blood
and cursing involved. First flight is one of those life
experiences that separates people who are alive from people
who live.
You want to build the best airplane you can afford because
you get the best return for your time spent. Think of it
this way, you can restore a '73 VW Beetle or a '73 Porsche
911RSR and you would spend the same amount of time on each.
Assuming the the percentage increase in value was the same
for both, you would receive many times more return for each
hour spent on the Porsche then the VW.
On the topic of user groups, I have a good friend who owns a
Mooney and he would much rather hang out with Lancair pilots
than Money pilots. I have never been to a Mooney gathering
so I couldn't say.
Building and flying your own airplane will enrich your life
in ways you cannot now imagine or predict. The people you
meet will be worth knowing. The decision to build will
change your life.
What say you?
Brent Regan
LIV-P (550 flying hours)"
What about Air Conditioning?
I have FINALLY found a system that is simple, works, and
doesn't cost a airspeed penalty I can't live with. Weight is
low due to NO fan for condenser. Airspeed loss is LESS than
5 kias. I have data from earlier prop tests for MT and GAMI
injector test runs to compare with actual data as we fly.
What a difference it makes in Florida in the summer. If
you're flying in the South, let me demonstrate this system
to you (and your wife) and you'll be convinced you can't fly
without it!.
Other A/C systems that cut a NACA duct hole in the fuselage,
Aft of the baggage door, where fuselage area is reducing,
will not have a inward airflow. They must rely on heavy
powerful fans for this condenser cooling air. Most report
little or no cooling in climb.
MK II AIR CONDITIONING FOR LANCAIR® IV & ES AVAILABLE!
ENCINITAS, CA: In 1995 Airflow Systems introduced the first
fully functional air conditioning system for the Lancair IV
and ES series of kit aircraft. Since the introduction of the
MK1 system over 30 air conditioning kits for Lancairs have
been delivered. Recently Airflow Systems introduced the Mk
II version of this system which incorporates numerous
upgrades developed over the past year.
Working with test results from the San Diego State
University Aerospace Engineering wind tunnel, Airflow
Systems has designed a new condenser installation that
further reduces air conditioner drag while maintaining the
high level of cooling efficiency enjoyed by owners of the
original system. Improved aesthetics and ease of maintenance
were also incorporated into the new design.
Upgrades also include the use of new, lighter weight
refrigerant hose, a wider selection of cabin air vent
options, reduced parts count and easier installation. All of
these improvements have been made based upon our extensive
experience gained during the past 6 years of designing and
manufacturing air conditioning kits for Lancairs.
Like all Airflow Systems aircraft upgrades, the MK II air
conditioning kit comes complete with everything necessary
for installation on aircraft under construction of for
retrofit to aircraft already flying.
The retail price for the kits are $7495.00. Installation is
available. Please contact the factory at 949-218-9701 with
any questions or visit the Web site at
www.airflow-systems.com/
If you would like to receive a demonstration of just how
effective this system is please contact Charlie Kohler at
home: 386-756-4445 or his cell phone: 386 527 2414
www.airflow-systems.com
Airflow Systems
35282 Vista De Todo
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
voice: 949-218-9701 • fax: 949-218-9705
TURBINES???
TURBINE DREAMS, TURBINE REALITY
Wonderful stuff on Lancair putting a Walter 601 in a Lancair
IV. There are two little things that we should be aware of
before we all rush off and toss our piston engines in the
trash. The first is SFC, the second is power at altitude.
Turbines are great things: air goes in one end, gets
compressed, fuel is added and burned, pressure and heat turn
turbine blades which give us HP and keep everything running.
Heck, the thing even takes in excess air to cool itself.
What could be better? Efficiency in all heat and combustion
engines is limited by the maximum heat and pressure
differential that can be developed in the working gas,
multiplied by the expansion ratio in the power producing
areas, minus all losses and accessory loads. Looking at
turbines we find that compression and expansion in the
turbine engine is limited by the number of "stages" and the
compression/recovery of each stage. Stages are made of
airfoils, airfoils cost money, cheap turbines don't have
many stages, cheap turbines have poor efficiency. Big
airliner turbines are among the most efficient engines yet
made. They have 5 to 12 compressor stages and 4 to 8 turbine
stages. Small turbines usually have only 2 or 3 compressor
stages and 1 to 2 turbine stages. More would cost too much
money, so efficiency is sacrificed for lower cost. Most sub
1000 HP (sea level) turbines have SFC in the range of .55 to
.8 lb./HP/hr. (lb.fuel per HP per hour) compared to a
TSIO-550 at .42 to .46 and a modern piston engine at .35 to
.41. Triple turbo compounded piston engines have achieved
SFC below .30. This is a far cry from a Walter's .65. So
what happens when we replace a 350 HP takeoff - 263 HP
cruise - .44 SFC TSIO-550 with a 700 HP takeoff - 315 HP
cruise - .65 SFC Walter? We go 6% faster in cruise at 25,000
ft. and burn 77% more fuel doing it!!! What a GREAT trade
off. Why the low power at altitude? Well, the only way to
vary compression and expansion on turbines is to use axial
stages and variable vane compressors. These were pioneered
on the J-79. But varying the stators can only affect
compression so far and small, low cost turbines usually
don't have this and rely on at least one centrifugal stage
(which can't use variable stators...). So compression is
fixed. This means that power falls off with atmospheric
pressure. This means that the power of a 700 HP (sea level)
Walter is only 315 HP at 25,000 ft. Ooops. Turbocharged
piston engines have wastegates. They run nearly normally
aspirated at sea level (as long as we are talking about GOOD
piston engines and not over boosted certificated bombs). As
you climb, the wastegate closes and the turbocharger picks
up the loss in atmospheric pressure. Back pressure in the
exhaust is less than people think since the backside of the
turbo is seeing the lower than sea level atmosphere. At
altitude, a turbo'd piston engine can achieve many times the
compression and expansion ratios of a turbine. With them
comes higher power at altitude and lower SFC. Oh, yeah.
Don't forget that because the cooling air is being pulled in
the front of a turbine engine with the working gas that max
power becomes temperature limited in hot or high conditions.
Lots of modern turbines are engine control protected from
meltdown. Older ones just let the pilot look at the TIT as
the throttle is advanced. Of course, there's a little lag in
there that can allow you to push up the throttle and melt
your turbine stages before you catch it, but that's only a
$100,000+ mistake for a whole new hot section. We may get
cooling limited with our piston engines, but the lag is
longer and the consequences of a few seconds of overtemp is
usually not loss of the whole mess. The Walters that are
coming over here for bargain prices ($45k to $80k) are run
out from low altitude commuter airline and cargo service.
They are not protected from throttle transient induced
meltdowns. Now I hear all sorts of wonderful things about
the new Williams FJ-X. Williams has historically achieved
better SFC than average at the expense of even less power at
altitude. At least his engine controls protect against
meltdowns. Having seen it, I have to ask how Williams
expects this to be a useful aircraft engine without any
accessory drives. The only accessory power on the whole
engine comes from one puny starter/generator. No compressor
bleed air, no hydraulic pump, no vacuum pump, no dual
alternators, no de-ice system, no air conditioning, etc.
Worst of all, no provision for ever adding them! Everything
gets driven electrically and is counted separate from the
engine weight. Not really apples to apples, and it gets
worse when you find out that the rating on the one
starter/generator can't run all the accessory loads of a
TSIO-550. As a professional aerospace engineer and aircraft
designer I cringe every time I hear about how great small
turbines would be for aircraft like the Lancair IV. While I
rail against the lack of progress in certificated piston
engines, I am working with a manufacturer of modern
technology engines that achieve low enough SFC and high
enough power at altitude to dust the utility of the turbines
in light aircraft. TCM's efforts in EFI are at least a step
in the right direction. Look at what you REALLY get from a
small turbine with accessory loads at altitude vs. what you
can get from a turbocharged piston engine and it will
surprise you. The small power gain vs. the fuel cost is
rarely worth it below 500 HP at 25,000+ ft. Eric Ahlstrom
Posted on behalf of "Lance A. Neibauer"
<lancen@lancair.com>:
Folks, I recently read some comments on turbines that lacked
some areas of accuracy so here I go again. Other than always
wanting more power, the turbines possess worth in other
areas as well. The Walter run-outs from fields in outback
Russia are indeed a bad idea, almost as bad as the chopped
off Avia props that usually go with them. Consequently, I
went straight to Walter and we've worked out a good program
for factory rebuilt 601E's. 750 hp, .67 SFC's, with good ram
recovery up to 400 hp at 25,000 ft., 2,000 TBO that is very
realistic and 8 years (for seals etc.). Total overhauls are
about 40,000, maybe less. So, cutting to the chase at the
lower flight levels we typically run 265 hp with the
Continental, burning around 21 gph since the Cont. doesn't
care for lean of peak operations in the flight levels* That
comes to about .46 sfc. The Walter will burn 26 at that
power setting for a .67 sfc., 27% more fuel by gallons. If
the jet fuel cost were 27% less then fuel costs would be
equal. (Actually one would save considerable fuel dollars
operating in Europe, Asia or South America - virtually
anywhere other than good old USofA.) But, while jet fuel is
generally less in the USA, it's not that much less so there
is added fuel cost here but it's really not too bad. The
difference is that there will be over 100 hp still
available, it will run quieter and smoother. And while I
can't complain at all about reliability with the
Continental, there is little discussion as to the great
reliability with a good turbine. By the way, cooling drag
drops from significant to nearly non-existent and prop
efficiency should go up. The Walters that we've selected all
come with Auto-start. Push the button and in 19 seconds,
it's either sitting there running and ready to go or it has
shut itself down automatically. There is also a very nice
braking feature available with the engine/prop. Hartzell is
now building a custom prop that will be similar to that
which we ran on the Tigress. Having looked seriously at all
the possible turbines, this was the only one that fit -
generally from a cost viewpoint. While every maker offered
us a demo engine, literally all others were too expensive.
The Garrett had the best sfc's being a direct drive, it's
exhaust straight out the back would be a serious cabin
heater, Allison was too low of hp and the new Williams - too
light if you can believe that! I'd need two of them up front
- hmmm? Lance"
WHAT I THINK.
*I beg to differ Lance. MOST IVP operators are running
lean of peak (LOP) at higher altitudes with f/f's of 16-17
GPH. Cyl head temps at 360-380. Most are GAMI trained and
have seen the difference of rich vs lean operations.
I believe the Continental is the best choice for this
airplane. Claims for increased performance (30-50 kts) have
not materialized. The usual scapegoat is to blame the
propeller.
I believe the airspeed vs horsepower vs drag is optimized
with the Continental.
Charlie K.
