In my brief couple of rides in a friend’s Lancair IV, the act of landing in itself didn’t seem like a big deal, but getting rid of all the energy to get established on speed/on glide slope for final approach took a loooong time. Same thing with take-off: getting airborne with such a high wing loading is followed by a protracted procedure to get the thing cruising fast – which is what it is all about. The owner compared it to a Mustang in that regard, both being planes with high wing loading.
We had a IV-P on the Swedish register a number of years ago and it was “approved” for IFR simply through the equipment list.
There is no official “IFR approval” as there is in the US for example. This particular aircraft also had deice boots, hot prop and extra stuff to fly in Ice.
The airfield where it was based had a 1000m hard runway and he frequently used all of it to land, coming in over the fence at warp speed. The porpoising on landing was always fun to watch although I do believe one could do a better job at it, and it probably didn’t actually require all that speed on final. Some friends of mine went for a spin in it as he was planning on selling, but they came back with slight terror in their eyes.
It is a bit cramped, noisy, goes like hell and appears to be a handful. Must be lots of fun!
If the stall speed is 75 knots, 90-100kts should do it on final, not really an issue to handle and very common speeds for twins, but it does eat runway.
The Columbia is basically a fixed geared Lancair IV
That’s what I thought at the beginning…. it is the certified version of the Lancair ES. The fuselage is the same as the IV, but the wing is different.
Lancair IV: Area 98 sq. ft., wing loading 36.2 lbs/sq. ft
Lancair ES: Wing Area 140 sq. ft., wing loading 21.4 lbs./sq. ft.
The Columbia has almost the same area as the ES (Cessna claims 141 sq ft) so is probably the same wing.
All three have about the same wingspan.
It could be implemented the way it was/is in the Merlin-engine Mustang: “Firewalling the throttle on takeoff / go-around will kill you. Exercise caution”.
Could it not be implemented as an engine power limitation (in terms of MP) when below a certain IAS?
I can’t remember what they did on the TBM but the cruise power limit was done by interlocking the throttle with the flap setting, or something like that. On the 850 that was removed, I seem to vaguely recall…
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.
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.
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.
Peter,
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.
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?
