Just curious what the support network is, and how much it depreciates in the used market. I would hate to tie up $1.1 million and have to sell it for a small fraction of that due to limited demand. Or to have issues, the SE but the factory is in the NW.
I don't trust companies that advertise their TAS without including IAS. Based on the raw specs from their website I get ~95% of the performance from my turbo bonanza at 60% of the fuel burn. (Piston version). The turboprop version gets 33% higher top speed at the cost of 220% fuel burn and half the range. Doesnt even increase the service ceiling, still 25k. Is there a point to this plane beyond burning money on an interior product?
Why the PT-6 and. not the Garret TBE- 331? (or Williams) Are they not as reliable? Does the 331 (or Williams) have some bad reviews.. 331 is 15-20% more fuel efficient than the PT-6
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that. The very first thing I said was that the way the two back wheels came out reminded me of a Cessna 177RG.
@@PaulAnthonyDuttonUk Haven't heard of any gear collapsing. Though I have to admit, I have also never heard of anyone liking/disliking a design based on how the retractable landing gear look as the bird sits on the ground. From other commentators, I have heard that the springiness of the steel tube landing gear is the biggest drawback because there is just no energy absorption in them; so birds with that sort of steel tube landing gear bounce a little on the takeoff, landing, and roll out.
Looks like most of the owners are older gentlemen stepping down to Basic Med, and from more capable and safer aircraft. Insurance is next to impossible to get on these airplanes, if that tells you anything.
The landing gear coming down like that is kinda concerning. I know some Cessnas do the same but I’m paying 1.2 million plus. I rather have a little extra weight and add the Lanceair evolution gear
Retractable landing gear is normally a huge amount of weight. If it were overbuilt to the degree some other planes are, it wouldn’t have the performance. Lancairs are built for speed
I get that everyone is doing their own thing in their own price bracket, but sometimes, being where Im at in life, it baffles me that they talk about the fuel efficiency of a $1.1 million plane
Probably because you think about efficiency in terms of $. Bear in mind that efficiency is also what determines range and speed. If it is not efficient, full tanks won’t get you as far before needing to stop for a fill up. Or if you want to avoid that, you need to slow down to save fuel. These laws of physics are not exempted just because someone spends money.
Fuel efficiency directly affects useful load and range. 100 gallon tank at 10 mi/gal gives me a range of 1000mi. 100 gallon tank at 20mi/gal gives me a range of 2000mi, or 1000mi with an extra 300lbs of cargo.
@@ticenits1926 the piston model is basically a turbo bonanza with less space and bigger fuel tanks. Look at the specs. Unless you're planning to fly from California to Hawaii the bonanza is a better plane at quarter to half the cost.
@@tc6984 Garrett power is better econ fit for available fuel in this airframe. Pratts are too thirsty. And all Garretts have negative torque sensing. Garretts are also much cheaper to overhaul and maintain than PT6's
I'm a fan of the performance data point that the Lancair IV-P or Lancairs in general are. However the turbine version at over a million dollars, only a few percent faster than the piston version, is just not the revolution we need. While the IVP makes a Cirrus look like it's standing still, it's still an 800kg bird or 4 cast iron pianos and that's just not the best we can do. If instead we do a glider style teardrop pressurized hull and use the double compound curves of that shape to make very thin carbon fiber plenty rigid, we have an ultra light ultra aerodynamic plane that could be powered by 2 rear turbofan engines of negligible size. With long thin high speed glider wings, it is a revolution that sweeps everything else. That front PT6 is a complex, heavy, very expensive obstructing noise maker while 15kg turbo fans at the back deliver pristine silence and can be made at negligible cost. Not to mention the dual engine redundancy. It should be well possible to make a 300kg 4 seater with twin jets and when that is true, essentially all other designs must immediately be abandoned. With extreme prejudice. I suspect it's even possible to make a stol plane along those lines, even capable of water landing.
Big generalizations there-assuming people are lazy for this topic is just silly. It is a delicate engineering balance of power, aerodynamics, assembly, AND ECONOMICS(don't forget liability insurability). Go build a Vans RV plane or another kitbuild and let us know how it goes. The Velocity Raptor is RIGHT up your alley. Just because you think there is a solution does NOT make it one that meets all the criteria for a company to actually build it. As a hobbyist, go right ahead.
@@thejam70 perhaps if you concentrate you might recognize that I proposed a 300kg twin jet while the Raptor is a 1426kg single engine piston prop. One is not like the other.
@@tc6984 why not? Every general aviation company adds more power TBM, Mooney, kodiak with the 900, Cessna with the 208, hell people have put the IO720 in the lancair IVP.
The real question should be what it’s like to try and find insurance for it !
better add icing to really use it at that price point.
The ones I’ve seen have the therm X system
with that climb rate you'll be out of icing in 5 minutes
De-icing is standard, so is the ballistic parachute.
Just curious what the support network is, and how much it depreciates in the used market. I would hate to tie up $1.1 million and have to sell it for a small fraction of that due to limited demand. Or to have issues, the SE but the factory is in the NW.
Good questions. Although I believe the depreciation should not be that bad.
I just don't have $1.1M to throw at an airplane to find out. ;)
Welcome to owning airplanes.
Cool aircraft but lancair evolution with pt6-21 is superior. Will do 275kts at 30gph or less and most likely carries more.
I don't trust companies that advertise their TAS without including IAS. Based on the raw specs from their website I get ~95% of the performance from my turbo bonanza at 60% of the fuel burn. (Piston version). The turboprop version gets 33% higher top speed at the cost of 220% fuel burn and half the range. Doesnt even increase the service ceiling, still 25k. Is there a point to this plane beyond burning money on an interior product?
Everything looks super cool but the vne of 220 is too low. Ivp had 255. And windows keep blowing up.
Why the PT-6 and. not the Garret TBE- 331? (or Williams) Are they not as reliable? Does the 331 (or Williams) have some bad reviews.. 331 is 15-20% more fuel efficient than the PT-6
Landing gear looks a bit fragile.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that. The very first thing I said was that the way the two back wheels came out reminded me of a Cessna 177RG.
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 - It’s probably not as fragile as it looks yet not a great look..
@@PaulAnthonyDuttonUk Haven't heard of any gear collapsing. Though I have to admit, I have also never heard of anyone liking/disliking a design based on how the retractable landing gear look as the bird sits on the ground. From other commentators, I have heard that the springiness of the steel tube landing gear is the biggest drawback because there is just no energy absorption in them; so birds with that sort of steel tube landing gear bounce a little on the takeoff, landing, and roll out.
Is it a 2 +1 seater...or realistically a 2 seater?
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 one of them didnt even fully extend and got blown back by the wind!
Can you fit a golf bag?
Looks like most of the owners are older gentlemen stepping down to Basic Med, and from more capable and safer aircraft. Insurance is next to impossible to get on these airplanes, if that tells you anything.
I saw the landing gear come down and promptly tuned out.
The landing gear coming down like that is kinda concerning. I know some Cessnas do the same but I’m paying 1.2 million plus. I rather have a little extra weight and add the Lanceair evolution gear
Retractable landing gear is normally a huge amount of weight. If it were overbuilt to the degree some other planes are, it wouldn’t have the performance. Lancairs are built for speed
Bravo
I get that everyone is doing their own thing in their own price bracket, but sometimes, being where Im at in life, it baffles me that they talk about the fuel efficiency of a $1.1 million plane
Probably because you think about efficiency in terms of $. Bear in mind that efficiency is also what determines range and speed. If it is not efficient, full tanks won’t get you as far before needing to stop for a fill up. Or if you want to avoid that, you need to slow down to save fuel. These laws of physics are not exempted just because someone spends money.
@@dryreed yep. not having to stop for fuel is a huge factor when navigating around weather.
@@jonasbaine3538 pistol model beats the turbine to final destination every time just because you dont have to land and refuel as often.
Fuel efficiency directly affects useful load and range. 100 gallon tank at 10 mi/gal gives me a range of 1000mi. 100 gallon tank at 20mi/gal gives me a range of 2000mi, or 1000mi with an extra 300lbs of cargo.
@@ticenits1926 the piston model is basically a turbo bonanza with less space and bigger fuel tanks. Look at the specs. Unless you're planning to fly from California to Hawaii the bonanza is a better plane at quarter to half the cost.
landing gear toothpicks deploying like insect legs
Lancair IVP-331 is best
Why?
@@tc6984 Garrett power is better econ fit for available fuel in this airframe. Pratts are too thirsty. And all Garretts have negative torque sensing. Garretts are also much cheaper to overhaul and maintain than PT6's
I'm a fan of the performance data point that the Lancair IV-P or Lancairs in general are. However the turbine version at over a million dollars, only a few percent faster than the piston version, is just not the revolution we need. While the IVP makes a Cirrus look like it's standing still, it's still an 800kg bird or 4 cast iron pianos and that's just not the best we can do.
If instead we do a glider style teardrop pressurized hull and use the double compound curves of that shape to make very thin carbon fiber plenty rigid, we have an ultra light ultra aerodynamic plane that could be powered by 2 rear turbofan engines of negligible size. With long thin high speed glider wings, it is a revolution that sweeps everything else. That front PT6 is a complex, heavy, very expensive obstructing noise maker while 15kg turbo fans at the back deliver pristine silence and can be made at negligible cost. Not to mention the dual engine redundancy.
It should be well possible to make a 300kg 4 seater with twin jets and when that is true, essentially all other designs must immediately be abandoned. With extreme prejudice.
I suspect it's even possible to make a stol plane along those lines, even capable of water landing.
I’m glad you have it all figured out! Thank goodness a voice of reason! When will your prototype be ready to fly?
@@thejam70 If I do all the thinking and all the doing for the world, isn't that a little lazy of the rest of you.
Big generalizations there-assuming people are lazy for this topic is just silly. It is a delicate engineering balance of power, aerodynamics, assembly, AND ECONOMICS(don't forget liability insurability). Go build a Vans RV plane or another kitbuild and let us know how it goes. The Velocity Raptor is RIGHT up your alley. Just because you think there is a solution does NOT make it one that meets all the criteria for a company to actually build it. As a hobbyist, go right ahead.
@@thejam70 perhaps if you concentrate you might recognize that I proposed a 300kg twin jet while the Raptor is a 1426kg single engine piston prop. One is not like the other.
@@DanFrederiksen Since you "proposed" it, build it.
Not fast enough, instead of the PT6A-28 at 680shp it needs the PT6A-140A with 900shp.😂
There's a Lancair IV-P with Garrett TPE331-6, 840 HP. Reportedly cruise speed at FL260 is 330 KTAS
@@greighenning9091 that’s more like it, but I would rather have the PT6.
Why?@@MattMorris481
@@tc6984 why not? Every general aviation company adds more power TBM, Mooney, kodiak with the 900, Cessna with the 208, hell people have put the IO720 in the lancair IVP.