I own a humble Skystar Pulsar III with 120 HP. I like to say it’s my baby Lancair 320. I see similar performance numbers to yours but mine are in MPH instead of knots. It’s interesting to note, your fuel burn is almost as low as mine, relative to the speed. IMO the Lancair 320/360 is the most attractive airframe in existence. To me, it’s prettier in form than even the Legacy. If prices of Lycoming O-360 and available, unfinished Lancair would stop going up, I’d like to step up to one. Congratulations on owning yours and thank you for the tour and demonstration 😎🎩♠️
@@SirDrifto I should have clarified too, for anyone not familiar, the source of the modest Pulsar’s respectable performance is its small size and weight. The cockpit width is only 37” at the shoulders and mine has an empty weight of 750 pounds. It is also stress rated at only +4/-2. I’m just 5’7” and wife is 5’1” so it fits us ok. The size of the 320/360 would feel roomy in comparison and I’d enjoy the peace of mind, having 50% more structural strength. Stay Awesome Brother ♠️
I'd love to put a Viking 195 Turbo in one of these. Cheaper than a Lycoming, and would be incredible performance. Such great aircraft. I hope to own one someday
@@IronHideWildfireI follow Viking and Aeromomentum Engines with great interest. Their biggest challenge for me is the form factor that does not fit cleanly in FWF area of sleek, sporty airframes. I may be wrong, but the Glasair seems to have a little more room inside its cowls than Lancair 320/360. To me the Lancair is better looking than the Glasair II, but the G2 might be the better host for an auto-conversion engine. If Viking or Aeromomentum would develop a ~190 hp engine with gearbox that better fits within an attractive Lancair or Glasair cowling, I’d start looking for a project airframe tomorrow.
I'm going to be going light sport and hopefully with the revisions being made I can get in the Pulsar as well. I would like to get a glasair or a lancair, but it doesn't look like the stall speeds are going to be slow enough.
Some guy named Lance put together a couple of decent planes in the 80s. Lancair IV-P vastly outperforms a Cirrus SR22T, maybe 60% faster which is no small margin. And it wouldn't be hard to do even better today. They could be much lighter as carbon fiber structures and the engines could be much more advanced as well. Ideally even small turbofan jets, easily march at 700km/h high in the flight levels with better fuel economy than a Cirrus. Two small jets would also be nice over unforgiving terrain like the Rockies
I prefer the Glasair 1RG to the Lancair 320/360. Very similar cruise performance though. Mine has 1 Electronic ignition which advances timing based on mfp.
The old Glasairs were built. That aircraft has a brilliantly balanced set of compromises. What could be accomplished now, with modern Composites and purpose-designed airfoils. Man!
Is it possible make the airplane 50 or 100 knots per hour faster with a better engine and what is to maximum structural cruising speed? The maximum speed and therefore the cruising speed depend very much on the altitude and the air density at that altitude. So the plane with a better engine should automatically be able to fly faster because it can reach a higher altitude. If I'm not mistaken, the Lancair 360's engine doesn't even have 200 HP. There are now much better engines that use less fuel and have more power.
The nose is so high, it feels like a tail dragger. Could it be that he has a bit too much charge in the nose strut or too little in the mains? Or, is that nose up angle normal? I'd even suggest that possibly the "got to fight to keep the nose up" issue he notes on landing is caused by the high nose strut (if it is too high/not normal).
It primarily relates to the wings angle of incidence to get the proper fuselage attitude in cruise. Then making the ground attitude whatever it needs to be to place the wing where it wants to be for takeoff and landing. Keeping the fuselage aligned in cruise is more important than on the ground. And getting the wing angle of attack right on takeoff roll is also more important than ground appearance. How it looks on it's gear is irrelevant. All of the best aircraft have awkward gear. F8F Bearcat. X-15. Etc.
23:10 180 knots True? That’s a little disappointing.. are you sure the gear is up? RVs cruise at 170-175 knots true. I would have expected better from this.
@@iain8837at 13,800 feet, that’s all you can make and its Wide open throttle. It’s not like you were throttled back, that’s WOT. Yes it’s fast but I thought Lancairs were faster than that. I was flying a 180 hp fixed pitch Glasair 2 that did 190 knots.
@@thomasaltrudahe mentioned it’s 10-15 kts slower due to the 3 blade prop. But needs it for his high altitude home airport take off and climb. Mine is 2 blade prop and cruises at 200tas at like 7.5gph. But I usually take off from sea level.
Hour building for an airline career, prerequisite is 1,500hrs. And getting those hours IFR in the flight levels is better than getting them in a Breezy II.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
The reflexed flaps design is really cool.
I own a humble Skystar Pulsar III with 120 HP. I like to say it’s my baby Lancair 320. I see similar performance numbers to yours but mine are in MPH instead of knots. It’s interesting to note, your fuel burn is almost as low as mine, relative to the speed. IMO the Lancair 320/360 is the most attractive airframe in existence. To me, it’s prettier in form than even the Legacy. If prices of Lycoming O-360 and available, unfinished Lancair would stop going up, I’d like to step up to one. Congratulations on owning yours and thank you for the tour and demonstration 😎🎩♠️
Skystar Pulsars are awesome aircraft. I knew a guy who had one. It flew phenomenal for the power.
@@SirDrifto I should have clarified too, for anyone not familiar, the source of the modest Pulsar’s respectable performance is its small size and weight. The cockpit width is only 37” at the shoulders and mine has an empty weight of 750 pounds. It is also stress rated at only +4/-2.
I’m just 5’7” and wife is 5’1” so it fits us ok. The size of the 320/360 would feel roomy in comparison and I’d enjoy the peace of mind, having 50% more structural strength. Stay Awesome Brother ♠️
I'd love to put a Viking 195 Turbo in one of these. Cheaper than a Lycoming, and would be incredible performance. Such great aircraft. I hope to own one someday
@@IronHideWildfireI follow Viking and Aeromomentum Engines with great interest. Their biggest challenge for me is the form factor that does not fit cleanly in FWF area of sleek, sporty airframes. I may be wrong, but the Glasair seems to have a little more room inside its cowls than Lancair 320/360. To me the Lancair is better looking than the Glasair II, but the G2 might be the better host for an auto-conversion engine. If Viking or Aeromomentum would develop a ~190 hp engine with gearbox that better fits within an attractive Lancair or Glasair cowling, I’d start looking for a project airframe tomorrow.
I'm going to be going light sport and hopefully with the revisions being made I can get in the Pulsar as well. I would like to get a glasair or a lancair, but it doesn't look like the stall speeds are going to be slow enough.
great interview and video , incredible plane
Thanks for watching
lovely machine
agreed!
Some guy named Lance put together a couple of decent planes in the 80s. Lancair IV-P vastly outperforms a Cirrus SR22T, maybe 60% faster which is no small margin. And it wouldn't be hard to do even better today. They could be much lighter as carbon fiber structures and the engines could be much more advanced as well. Ideally even small turbofan jets, easily march at 700km/h high in the flight levels with better fuel economy than a Cirrus. Two small jets would also be nice over unforgiving terrain like the Rockies
Definitely feel every bump in the sky in this plane otherwise great bird!
That is true!
Reminds me of my youth N360KB
🐈💨💨💨 this cat is an absolute rocket!!!
Flew one for the first time from the right seat a few days ago. This plane scares the shit out of me 😅
@@JosephFusco it's a spicey meatball for sure. What scares you the most about it?
@@SirDrifto Other than the cockpit being the size of a coffin? 😵💫 The margin of error feels very small in comparison to other aircraft.
Cool plane😎
I prefer the Glasair 1RG to the Lancair 320/360. Very similar cruise performance though. Mine has 1 Electronic ignition which advances timing based on mfp.
The old Glasairs were built.
That aircraft has a brilliantly balanced set of compromises.
What could be accomplished now, with modern Composites and purpose-designed airfoils. Man!
Is it possible make the airplane 50 or 100 knots per hour faster with a better engine and what is to maximum structural cruising speed?
The maximum speed and therefore the cruising speed depend very much on the altitude and the air density at that altitude. So the plane with a better engine should automatically be able to fly faster because it can reach a higher altitude. If I'm not mistaken, the Lancair 360's engine doesn't even have 200 HP. There are now much better engines that use less fuel and have more power.
The nose is so high, it feels like a tail dragger. Could it be that he has a bit too much charge in the nose strut or too little in the mains? Or, is that nose up angle normal? I'd even suggest that possibly the "got to fight to keep the nose up" issue he notes on landing is caused by the high nose strut (if it is too high/not normal).
Still, I like that plane for sure. Very impressive stats. The Cessna I fly doesn't come close.
Watched some more Lancair 360 videos. Seems the on-wheels nose high position is normal.
Normal. I suspect it's for prop clearance.
It primarily relates to the wings angle of incidence to get the proper fuselage attitude in cruise. Then making the ground attitude whatever it needs to be to place the wing where it wants to be for takeoff and landing.
Keeping the fuselage aligned in cruise is more important than on the ground. And getting the wing angle of attack right on takeoff roll is also more important than ground appearance. How it looks on it's gear is irrelevant. All of the best aircraft have awkward gear. F8F Bearcat. X-15. Etc.
23:10 180 knots True? That’s a little disappointing.. are you sure the gear is up? RVs cruise at 170-175 knots true. I would have expected better from this.
MAP 17.9 is very low cruise power, 48%, 185kts seems good, especially with only 7.8GPH.
@@iain8837at 13,800 feet, that’s all you can make and its Wide open throttle. It’s not like you were throttled back, that’s WOT. Yes it’s fast but I thought Lancairs were faster than that. I was flying a 180 hp fixed pitch Glasair 2 that did 190 knots.
@@thomasaltruda Ah true, I had 8500ft cruise in my head for some reason so thought they had maybe throttled back.
@@thomasaltrudahe mentioned it’s 10-15 kts slower due to the 3 blade prop. But needs it for his high altitude home airport take off and climb. Mine is 2 blade prop and cruises at 200tas at like 7.5gph. But I usually take off from sea level.
@@gingrasj a three blade prop isn’t 10 to 15 knots slower.. maybe 4 knots, but not 10 to 15.
best desigen good plane good
"flying off my hours to go to the Regionals"??
Hour building for an airline career, prerequisite is 1,500hrs. And getting those hours IFR in the flight levels is better than getting them in a Breezy II.