Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Lancair 4P - Danish reg - "IFR"

How does this work?

What exactly are the limitations, on VFR and IFR?

I know we have done this here before a number of times, but these “IFR” planes keep cropping up.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

VERY interesting also for something else:

This airplane has a KN64 DME installed. That DME is not IFR approved as not TSO’d as by Swiss/German authorities, but if it is EASA Reg and IFR approved, that means that at least in theory the KN64 could be used for IFR.

I have this DME and need to change it to a 62A in order to be IFR… if anyone can prove to me that this airplane is fully IFR approved under EASA then I can take this to the FOCA and tell them I want the same.

Re the airplane: Easiest would probably be to contact the seller and ask him how and in what legal frame this plane can be flown IFR in Europe. I could well imagine that it can be flown IFR in Scandinavia but not in the central countries.

LSZH, Switzerland

300kts! Jesus.

After reading the ad, the cynic in me thinks – IFR approved , fine. But it doesn’t say in which country…… honi soit qui mal y pense……

This plane achieves the performance partly by not having to adhere to the 60kt SEP certification limit for Vs.

I don’t know what the Vs is but moving it up to say 75kt will improve cruise perf dramatically. But you need some 1.5x more runway length, and the approach speed is a frequent comment on this type.

Also the fuel flow required to achieve the IAS which gives you 300kt TAS (even with the massive TAS gain at FL250) is going to be around 30 USG/hr. Factor in the cost of avgas and a Jetprop will be cheaper to run…

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It is definitly different to “IFR Equipped” which is true for many airplanes which can NEVER get a IFR certification here.

now, as we have learnt, only Germany and Switzerland actually have a documented IFR certification, most other countries don’t but simply require the necessary equipment to be installed (if I understand that correctly, please correct me).

If my research on this airplane is correct, it may actually be registered in Luxembourg. So what is the word there re IFR ops with experimentals?

LSZH, Switzerland


This plane achieves the performance partly by not having to adhere to the 60kt SEP certification limit for Vs.

Not only.

I had the chance to have a closer look at one here in Switzerland and talk to people who have flown it in order to create a simulator model for it. The guy is one of the foremost aerodynamic specialists I met in that field and he had a few very interesting things to say about it.

The 4P is a hotrod in more than one way and there are good reasons why it can’t be certified, not only the 60 kt limit.

I was told that the airplane is extremely overpowered for it’s structure and control surfaces, particularly rudder. On take off, it will not hold a centerline until it reaches quite a bit of speed for the rudder to become active. That means, you have to line up at a slight angle in order to allow the plane to drift off to a side due to the prop torque until the rudder is efficient. That means, you can not really use it on narrow or short runways safely.

Equally, it has flight characteristics which are not really suitable for your average PPL, even with HP endorsement. Speed management is “interesting” to say the least, I would also think that it can probably not do a lot of things required for certification safely.

The Columbia is basically a fixed geared 4, but it has received quite a lot of modifications in order to become certifyable. So the 4 and the 4P are really airplanes which do belong into that cathegory for a good reason. Which does not mean that in the hands of a capable pilot they can’t make absolutely amazing airplanes! It’s probably the closest thing to a personal VLJ you can fly.

LSZH, Switzerland

Yes I did say “partly”

The 4P doesn’t have enough rudder and aileron authority at Vs and at max engine power. But… neither I believe does the Spitfire. You have to know what you are doing to fly these types and if you just whack the throttle open on a low speed go-around you will kill yourself – guaranteed.

The Lancair Evolution turboprop (the start of the other thread) claims to comply with Part 23 so if they did that right it should not have those problems.

Last Edited by Peter at 12 Jun 10:17
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Back to the IFR approval. It is an experimental and subject to permit for every country you fly to. It will be interesting to see what limitations you gather on these permits.

EGBE - Coventry, United Kingdom

the procedure could be (like a certified three engine take-off on a ferry flight with a B707) to align correctly on the runway, check that static take-off thrust is attainable, and for the actual T/O set only partial power until you reach a certain speed where the rudder is able to keep the aircraft on centerline compensating for full take-off thrust.
On a 707 the “asymmetric” engine would join the other two running at T/O power after that speed.

Last Edited by nobbi at 12 Jun 10:46
EDxx, Germany
15 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top