I have flown the 320, 360 and the Legacy with the IO-550 engine at the Lancair headquarter in Bend, OR – from the left seat but with the company test pilot supervising.
While they were a lot of fun to fly they are real experts airplanes and I would not want to fly IFR in them. Although the wing loading is very high and most have great avionics, there is not a lot of stability in the roll axis. Also the plane is so slick that acceleration in the dive (or if you lose control …) is so quick, you better be a great pilot. Icing? Don’t even THINK about flying into icing conditions.
I know a couple of people who built one, and I know some people who stopped flying them because it scared the hell out of them.
I would fly it – VFR.
I forgot about the precise numbers, but the glide ratio of the Lancair 235/320 and 360 is only around 10:1. That’s about the same glide ratio as an older figher jet …
My Warrior’s is around 13, the Cirrus only 9:6.1
EDIT: Best glide speed is around 120 KIAS
10:1 is perfectly OK.
Problems in carrying even a few mm of ice is definitely a huge issue – you can bet on ice anywhere in Europe between 0 and about -10C and rapidly too.
1:10 is about the same as a draggy Cessna airframe. How do a bad glide ratio and the Lancair’s rapid acceleration in descent go together? I was under the impression that the bad glide rate of the Cessna allows me to descent steeply with relatively low airspeed.
Doesn’t low drag coincide with a good glide ratio?
Really, I still have not completely understoof that point. Same with the Cirrus … it’s so slick you have to reduce power a long time before you reach the pattern and I see ground speeds of around 220 many times on descent … but the glide ratio is only 9.6:1
An Airbus A340-600 has about 16:1 if I remember correctly.
The Lancair wing is really so hot (even the Cirrus wing looks like a tree in comparison) … I cannot imagine what ice does to it. But, of course, this is more based on intuition than on personal experience.
Our Arrow II has a glide ratio of 9:1.
I believe airliners then to have much better glide ratios than light aircraft in general.
I wonder what the glide ratio is with the mags off, propeller turning in fine pitch, half way between stall speed and best glide speed, field in sight? I think that’s the situation that’s more is likely to be hard to control, eh?
Peter,
There is nothing dangerous about a fast plane.
No, there isn’t. There are lots of fast planes which are quite normal to fly yet what they all need is proficiency and a lot more thinking ahead. I noticed this fast enough when I transitioned to the Seneca all these years ago and again to the Mooney after flying a 100 kt PA28 and 90 kt C150. Even my relatively benign Mooney at first got me scratching my head in small traffic circuits and descent, when with most Cessnas you have sufficient inbuilt drag for it to slow down. Yet, aerodynamically these planes are like any other. Most of them will fly hands off once trimmed out and once you master some basic speed control, you’ll be fine.
The Lancair is not one of those however. First of all, it can give even the latest Mooneys a run for it’s money in terms of aerodynamic cleanliness, meaning it won’t slow down easily and must be carefully managed on descent, approach and landing. More importantly however, this slickness and performance was achieved by pushing aerodynamics quite a long ways with the high wing loading and whatever else they did. I’d say to fly it IFR, you definitly NEED a good 2 axis Autopilot and you need to be on your toes all the time. As has been said already, I would not even try to figure out what ice will do to this wing profile. It does fulfil at least one of the criteria you mention and that is bq. no way to slow down sufficiently for practical flying, when descending
If you are willing to take it slow at first, to learn to “put on” this airplane and do prudent and easy things at first and then learn as you gain experience, there is not much wrong with flying a Lancair. It is extremely efficient, fast and a looker on the ramp, just enough for 2 and has a very decent range. But it is defiitly not for those who fly minimal hours or are stressed out reaching gear speed on descent in an Arrow.
The 320 is a ‘hot’ hands-on plane, not a solid, stable IFR cruiser.
I would fly it – VFR.
That’s exactly what I’m planning to do – fly it VFR. Only intuition speaking, but I just don’t think this kind of aircraft is made for long IFR trips where icing is a real possibility. Nope, not for me. Well, not in a Lancair, anyway. Call me chicken, but…. 
So the appeal really lies in flying, and handling, a fast, fun, challenging plane in the local area, plus some longer trips of course. Like so many things, it’s going to be a compromise. Vans, yes (of course!), but looks like the budget would have to be stretched even further to go for that…
Your comments have given me a lot of food for thought – thanks all! 
AFAIK, 10:1 is the ballpark figure for most common GA airplanes. In any case, my understanding is that the glide ratio has mainly to do with the wing and little or nothing to do with the general ‘slippyness’ of the airframe as a whole. After all, you pitch and trim for best glide which typically is quite a bit up, you don’t dive to Earth like a certain Mr. Baumgartner.
