Not sure if this is the correct forum to post this but a friends Dad is selling a Lancair 320 and I am intrigued by it. Not something I can afford to own but was wondering if anyone here has flown one. The little I have researched, they are quite fast, unforgiving if you aren't on the numbers, and insurance may be hard to swallow. While I have been looking at RV's (looking for a faster cross country type) this plane is interesting. Another friend has mentioned a partnership, but having flown nothing but low and slow types, the idea has it's appeal.

I'm personally familiar with two Lancairs. Both crashed, killing all on board each of them. I'm not saying they are unsafe, but they have no design margin. The tail is small, which reduces drag, but also makes it difficult (impossible?) to recover from spins. Cirrus solved that with a chute. Lancair solved it by having a toast at Oshkosh every year with the Lancair pilots for the brave souls (pilots less skilled than present company?) who died the year before. On top of that, quality varies because they are home built.

They go fast, land fast, and hit the ground fast when there is an emergency.

Even the owners association knows what the statistics look like:

https://www.lancairowners.com/files/wp- ... -Paper.pdf

Reference Figure 1. The 320 has a fatality rate of 21.17 per 100,000 hours of flight. For reference, a Cessna 172 has a fatality rate of 0.56 per 100,000 hours. As such the fatality rate in a 320 is about 40X higher...

WWhunter wrote:Not sure if this is the correct forum to post this but a friends Dad is selling a Lancair 320 and I am intrigued by it. Not something I can afford to own but was wondering if anyone here has flown one. The little I have researched, they are quite fast, unforgiving if you aren't on the numbers, and insurance may be hard to swallow. While I have been looking at RV's (looking for a faster cross country type) this plane is interesting. Another friend has mentioned a partnership, but having flown nothing but low and slow types, the idea has it's appeal.

The early Lancair's are super fun to fly. They maneuver nicely and are quite efficient cross country machines. They are built primarily for speed, and have little real world utility and zero backcountry utility. They have tiny wheels and prop clearance is scarce, so operations from anything but good paved surfaces is inviting trouble.

They have small wings, stabilizers and control surfaces that only work well when considerable energy is maintained. They can definitely bite without warning if airspeed management does not remain a priority.

The era of kit airplane building from which they hail, produced a lot of variability in composite build quality. I have seen some conditions that were pretty unsafe on these airplanes, but most of them are of decent build quality.

Lancairs have to be fast because they are so uncomfortable no one can stand to ride in them very long. I have a friend that built a Lancair 4. I rode in it once for a flight around Mount Bachelor in Oregon. Very uncomfortable. He has not flown it in 16 years now since he got married and has two children.

Did some flight review action in one, I really liked it

If I got a second plane probably be one, if I wanted a good plane for travel probably be one

Comfort wise you were laying back pretty far, seemed at least as comfy as the 185, I’d just make sure I had some type of shade or tint or something on all that glass if I was going to much sunny daytime flying

Not a great place to discuss Lancair. They are beautiful and fast but for many the only trip they make is to Oshkosh. If you want fast homebuilt with some backcountry capability, simplicity, safety track record, good support/community hard to beat RV products. Cruise to stall is like 4:1. You actually see them out there and used planes have >500 hours.

Thanks everyone! I would prefer an RV but the price and speed of this Lancair are definitely appealing. To be honest with myself, it may be more airplane than I want to handle without considerable training. Have found a DPE with one somewhat locally and am trying to get ahold of him to discuss training, pros and cons of the aircraft. He owns a Lancair 235.

WWhunter wrote:Thanks everyone! I would prefer an RV but the price and speed of this Lancair are definitely appealing. To be honest with myself, it may be more airplane than I want to handle without considerable training. Have found a DPE with one somewhat locally and am trying to get ahold of him to discuss training, pros and cons of the aircraft. He owns a Lancair 235.

Get the lance

The RV is like a bicycle with training wheels welded on compared to the slick RG lance, not sure how much you fly, but I’d wager flying the RV you’ll think about the lance, flying the lance you’ll forget about the RV

NineThreeKilo wrote:

WWhunter wrote:Thanks everyone! I would prefer an RV but the price and speed of this Lancair are definitely appealing. To be honest with myself, it may be more airplane than I want to handle without considerable training. Have found a DPE with one somewhat locally and am trying to get ahold of him to discuss training, pros and cons of the aircraft. He owns a Lancair 235.

Get the lance

The RV is like a bicycle with training wheels welded on compared to the slick RG lance, not sure how much you fly, but I’d wager flying the RV you’ll think about the lance, flying the lance you’ll forget about the RV

Lmao! Had to show your comment to my wife and son....we all laughed at how accurate you are!

The Lancair 320 is a pretty decent airplane. Not as unforgiving as the IVP or Legacy. Its a bit more a experimentors airplane than the RV, but a lot more inspiring to fly. I don't agree with the comments on approach speeds, they're slightly faster than a Bonanza or Arrow, but not significantly. The IV-P is a totally different animal, you couldn't give me one of those.

I cant give you a review of the 320 but I flew a Lancair IVP for a year and have a few hours in the 360. When I was a young lad - my mission was to go fast which costs a lot of money. The IVP seemed attractive. I got to fly one for a year and put a 100 hours on it. I enjoyed flying it. The side stick made the leg room nice and it was fun cruising up in the flight levels - especially with tailwinds. I was flying a Mooney M20J before that so it felt comfortable. By comparison the 360 had a center stick and was much less comfortable. Both were fast airplanes. I used to flight plan 270 knots in the IVP and I believe my friend with the 360 used to plan 200 knots. If speed is the mission then the Lancair is the plane.

What I didn't know then and I do know now is that the Lancairs have the worst safety record of any GA aircraft. Speed is the mission which sacrifices the stall speed in the process. The composite material is light but doesn't crash well at high speeds. This really wasn't sorted out back then like it is now. The lancairs were still relatively new. The link posted above says it all. I think there is also a lot of inexperienced pilots flying them too. I am not sure how the 320/360 was in a crosswind. The IVP had some issues with crosswinds. I think there are safer alternatives in the high speed low cost 2 seat market - Vans RV 6-9s that have better safety records. I would curious to hear what your father's opinion is regarding safety.


Josh

Dog is my Copilot wrote:I cant give you a review of the 320 but I flew a Lancair IVP for a year and have a few hours in the 360. When I was a young lad - my mission was to go fast which costs a lot of money. The IVP seemed attractive. I got to fly one for a year and put a 100 hours on it. I enjoyed flying it. The side stick made the leg room nice and it was fun cruising up in the flight levels - especially with tailwinds. I was flying a Mooney M20J before that so it felt comfortable. By comparison the 360 had a center stick and was much less comfortable. Both were fast airplanes. I used to flight plan 270 knots in the IVP and I believe my friend with the 360 used to plan 200 knots. If speed is the mission then the Lancair is the plane.

What I didn't know then and I do know now is that the Lancairs have the worst safety record of any GA aircraft. Speed is the mission which sacrifices the stall speed in the process. The composite material is light but doesn't crash well at high speeds. This really wasn't sorted out back then like it is now. The lancairs were still relatively new. The link posted above says it all. I think there is also a lot of inexperienced pilots flying them too. I am not sure how the 320/360 was in a crosswind. The IVP had some issues with crosswinds. I think there are safer alternatives in the high speed low cost 2 seat market - Vans RV 6-9s that have better safety records. I would curious to hear what your father's opinion is regarding safety.


Josh

I’d go center stick, also if a plane doesn’t scare you a little it’s not quite as fun

Before I got my 185, which doesn’t scare me too much, I was looking at some very large engine small thin wing planes, but landing on water (more than once) just was too much fun

The other one, scale works P51, they are working on a LS engine and a BMW V10 that will get the power to weight like a North American, so a smaller 2 place carbon fiber P51 with a LS or BMW engine, some tweaking and you have a real winner

Dog is my Copilot wrote:I cant give you a review of the 320 but I flew a Lancair IVP for a year and have a few hours in the 360. When I was a young lad - my mission was to go fast which costs a lot of money. The IVP seemed attractive. I got to fly one for a year and put a 100 hours on it. I enjoyed flying it. The side stick made the leg room nice and it was fun cruising up in the flight levels - especially with tailwinds. I was flying a Mooney M20J before that so it felt comfortable. By comparison the 360 had a center stick and was much less comfortable. Both were fast airplanes. I used to flight plan 270 knots in the IVP and I believe my friend with the 360 used to plan 200 knots. If speed is the mission then the Lancair is the plane.

What I didn't know then and I do know now is that the Lancairs have the worst safety record of any GA aircraft. Speed is the mission which sacrifices the stall speed in the process. The composite material is light but doesn't crash well at high speeds. This really wasn't sorted out back then like it is now. The lancairs were still relatively new. The link posted above says it all. I think there is also a lot of inexperienced pilots flying them too. I am not sure how the 320/360 was in a crosswind. The IVP had some issues with crosswinds. I think there are safer alternatives in the high speed low cost 2 seat market - Vans RV 6-9s that have better safety records. I would curious to hear what your father's opinion is regarding safety.


Josh

Excellent thanks!
I didn't start flying until my late 20's and have been at it for 35+ years. All these years have been low and slow in either wheels or floats. My original thinking was definitely an RV. The Lancair was mentioned to me in a friendly conversation, so I went to look at it. Asked for an insurance qoute for the heck of it, that'll be a big factor in the decision.