Van's aircraft are used in the US as totally useful tools; the issue in Europe is that local regulators make using them for their intended purpose difficult. Vans will never certify anything because the market explicitly prefers to avoid certified anything.
In the US market for new aircraft (and by numbers, the world market) Vans aircraft and the like have replaced the majority of the certified market, fulfilling the same functions better and cheaper.
Re the Lancair IV at Schleissheim - I wondered about that one when I was there in May. Thanks!
he build the plane, flew it to Antartica came home and was so afraid from the performance that he donated it to a museum.
That's bizzare. He should have donated it to somebody who can keep ahead of something substantially faster than a C152.
I am only a very average pilot and when I flew a TBM850 I thought it was a piece of cake to fly. It was my first time seriously behind a G1000, too. Sure it goes quick but once you are a few hundred feet above the ground 250kt looks just like 150kt. The net result is that you spend less time in the air which is generally preferable if going A to B. When crossing N France I would like an F16 because there is nothing but fields!
However the US Exp Category turboprop Lancair (the one with the thin legs) has a Vs way above the normal 60kt FAR23 limit and this will compromise runway performance to the point where it is unusable for many common "GA" runways; especially if the brakes are poor. Throw in some possibly dodgy stall behaviour and you then might scare a lot of pilots quite reasonably. But not via straight speed.
> and was so afraid from the performance that he donated it to a museum
Actually it doesn't really read like that to me - more like the machine's had it's share in the adventures of that guy, so he gave it away. The report is extremely condensed, compared with the trip that he's describing - I've read flying books made up of less than a quarter of that! Impressive and something I never would have dared... he didn't have that many more hours than I have now when he started on that trip!
I can sit in the back of a Cessna 400 (I am 6 ft), but the Cirrus is roomier. The Cirrus also has more payload. I also have read that build quality of the recent Cirrus models are very good. Early models were poor.
Still, I have no idea why 400/TTX does not sell. Speed is good, and it handles so much better than the Cirrus. I suspect some of the pilots choosing the Cirrus has not flown different handling types or simply does not appreciate good flying qualities. But it clearly cannot be all.
I do not think retractable gear would add 30 or even 20 KT. On the old 182 Turbo, which should be a valid comparison because fixed and RG used the same engine for some years, the RG was faster by 15 KTAS at 75% and 20.000 ft. The Piper PA-32R Lance was less than 10 KTAS faster than the -32 fixed undercarriage (Six). And the gear of the 400/TTx looks very aerodynamic so putting it away may not gain a lot more.
I believe the pilot's insurance in the US is very much more costly - or demanding in terms of required training - for someone flying a retractable than flying a fixed gear aircraft. And I believe that those insurance companies have it right. All those gear up incidents are costly. In spite of everything, those incidents seem to continue. Alarms are not heard or not acted upon. Safety features are overridden. There are mechanical failures. False gear warnings distract pilots with sometimes bad results (remember that Mexican DC-8 approaching New York many years ago?). Manual extension procedures are forgotten or are not trained at all. And it seems that fixed gear airplanes also have fewer accidents not related to landing - e.g. fewer en-route breakups. RG increases cost and reduces payload. I think it makes good sense to "fix" the gear. A friend of mine bought a Mooney Ovation 4-6 years ago. He admitted that the main reason for the choice over e.g. a Columbia / C400 was that he likes raising and lowering the gear. I understand him completely and is definitely not pointing fingers - being more than happy flying Mooneys myself - but it seems the subject of RG in privately owned single engine pistons is about style more than it is about the price of increased performance.
The cabin of a 400 feels about the same in the front as the sr22, but has less legroom in the back. The 400 is also heavier. Again all that are mere rounding errors.
The Lancair ES and IV have different wings, hence the much higher speeds the IV can achieve.
If HIV is right and retractable is about style, maybe making it retractable will increase sales, even if the speed is the same...
Peter said re Lancair IV...
He should have donated it to somebody who can keep ahead of something substantially faster than a C152.
Its not the speed in itself, and the powerful brakes allow it to be stopped in a reasonable distance (once, then let them cool!) Its more the high wing loading that's an issue, about 50% higher than a TB20 at 36 lb/sq ft (177 kg/m²). I've flown it in the air, but more interesting was observing the take-off and climb profile: its really like a jet, I understand it literally will not take off without flaps, it doesn't exactly leap into the air even with 350 HP and then everything is about speed - doggy performance until its nursed it up to 170 kts indicated for cruise climb. Same thing on approach: at 220 kts it has 80% more energy than a 160 kt aircraft. Very interesting to watch and learn about, but I'm more into stuff with lots of wing to go with lots of power :-)
Another note about the brakes is that if you didn't use them, I think you'd roll right off the end of a 4,000 ft runway. Braking on roll out is mandatory.
I believe the pilot's insurance in the US is very much more costly - or demanding in terms of required training - for someone flying a retractable than flying a fixed gear aircraft
I wonder if that is actually true. One poll I saw suggested it was the other way round, with Cirrus owners getting loaded. But there can easily be other factors e.g. it is quite plausible that the average Cirrus pilot graduates to the Cirrus with fewer hours of TT than the average retractable pilot graduates to his retractable.
I would bet, for example, that far fewer first time SR22 buyers have an IR than first time average-retractable buyers.
My premium started at £6200 in 2002 (for a group of un-named pilots and me having 120hrs TT and a PPL) and is now £2500 (sole pilot, CPL/IR, 1600hrs TT). The hull value (which makes up at least 2/3 of the premium here) has been £195k the whole time (agreed value i.e. they will pay out 195k on a total loss regardless of MV).
What the C400 population would be like I don't know but surely even in the USA one will need an IR to use it sensibly. In Europe, the bulk of an IR is needed - in recreational flying - to get airspace clearances and the actual conditions are mostly VMC. In the USA you can fly VFR basically everywhere up to 17999ft but you still need an IR for IMC.
The leather-wrapped side-stick control and additional horsepower provide advanced TTx pilots with speed and performance close to that of a jet
Is there an STC for TB20 to install leather-wrapped side-sticks?....sounds like it contributes to jet-like performance! 
Ah, the old "total performance" slogan from Dick, sorry for stepping on your toes Silvaire. The RVs are nice planes, and experimentals have brought on a host of developments over the past 25-30 yrs, but useful tools is a matter of taste.
No toes stepped on here :-) (thanks for the thought)
I've not had an RV but I'm surrounded by the things, and sometimes it seems they're multiplying like insects. Most of them get used for going places - one locally has been to all US states except Alaska and Hawaii, plus Canada. Van's planes have seemingly replaced Cessna and Piper as everyman's aircraft, and limited the US market for used, older retractables. It must surely also influence the market for expensive new factory built aircraft too. That may not be apparent when viewing the overall world market from Europe, which is why I mention it in a discussion on a new US-built aircraft.
So why don't I have an RV? Because the flip side is that broadly competitive certified stuff, while having a little less performance, has sunk to half the price of an RV and N-register certified maintenance is manageable with help from friends carrying the correct FAA paper.
