Every time I land from a trip where I had several hours with a 50kt headwind, I again look at the Lancair IV
You think you suffer in a 50kt headwind? Imagine that in an Auster! A couple of weeks ago I was being passed by traffic on the M6.
The airframe looks to have sustained little damage – it’s surprising that this resulted in a fatal +1 in critical condition.
Yes, it is that aircraft … look at the photos. Tragic …
Tragically, it looks like it lost control and crashed due to weather on Saturday if I read the reg right.
Only with the JetProp and your typical missions your 2 passengers would take the train ;-)
You don’t fly off grass anyway, so no additional constraints
I do grass but only if I know more than just somebody’s opinion on it.
You almost fly with more than 2POB, so you would always be within MTOW, even with the tanks full
I often fly 3-up. I think half my long trips are 3-up.
These aircraft cost about €200k with mediocre avionics, so throw another 50k at it and you’re good
A bit more than that by the time it has been done properly.
Maintenance would probably just cost marginally more, as would landing fees and possibly hangarage, but overall not so much more than the TB20
It would be much more. 2x to 5x more. AFAIK not a single PA46 engine has ever made TBO. I know several owners and get to hear the stories of how much they have spent on theirs, though admittedly some of that is the result of previous neglect, but then I would probably not be buying a new one myself either ($1M?).
Of course, it is less good for “bimbling around” (and less good for taking photos)
It’s almost useless for bimbling, and almost useless for photos, which unfortunately means a lot to me.
but IMHO, that aircraft would suit you you much better than the current aircraft you are flying, which IMHO, you are operating beyond what it was designed to do (forcing it up way past the design service ceiling, trying to sqeeze it above enroute clouds at FL200…)
Yes, it would be great for a certain % of my flying. Maybe 50% of the total distance flown. I just happen to like the other stuff 
I think I fly too often, with a mixture of “missions”. Some pilots I know fly only to go somewhere very specific e.g. on business, and for them the choice is a lot easier. I would need two planes, and no way am I doing that. My currency would be crap.
If I was going that way properly I would buy a Jetprop.
BTW I don’t think the TB20 is “designed to do” anything specially. The TB21 will go to FL250 also, and an oxygen mask is fine for the few times one would need to go that high. If I wanted a “halfway” upgrade I would buy a TB21 with full TKS.
A little OT:
Peter,
dreaming aside, I frankly never quite understood why you never stepped up to a certain aircraft, the PA46-310P (“Malibu)” with 140 gallon tanks. It looks like the ideal aircraft for you:200knots at 16GPH at FL200, which would give you exactly the same fuel costs as now (150 knots at 11GPH). Today’s 7-hour flights would be history
FL250+ ceiling, pressurization, known ice
Endurance 8 hours with the 140 gal version, so almost 1600 NM
You don’t fly off grass anyway, so no additional constraints
You almost fly with more than 2POB, so you would always be within MTOW, even with the tanks full
These aircraft cost about €200k with mediocre avionics, so throw another 50k at it and you’re good
Maintenance would probably just cost marginally more, as would landing fees and possibly hangarage, but overall not so much more than the TB20
Of course, it is less good for “bimbling around” (and less good for taking photos) but IMHO, that aircraft would suit you you much better than the current aircraft you are flying, which IMHO, you are operating beyond what it was designed to do (forcing it up way past the design service ceiling, trying to sqeeze it above enroute clouds at FL200…)
Maybe Sebastian has a few more words of praise to say about the 310P…
You can always make a plane go a lot faster, by chopping N metres off the wings, the elevator, the VS, and making the cockpit big enough for N people (not “modern” sized people) plus N toothbrushes
I am sure >200kt IAS is achievable on 10USG/hr, say an IO360, peak EGT, with a conventional (not canard, etc) 2-seater. You will just get some scary low speed handling, and with a “real Vs” about 20kt more than what it says on the box, you better not get an engine failure because it won’t be built like a tank.
Every time I land from a trip where I had several hours with a 50kt headwind, I again look at the Lancair IV Then I wake up and do nothing…
That is a good point , Peter. It delivers much better than a PA28 or C172 but it might be argued those are in another basket, being certified.
Compared to a 200HP BD4, which cruises at 172 kts according to en.wikipidia, the 155 kts do look a bit measly. Still, costwise it might be a nice deal, both to acquire and to operate. It must be a matter of personal feeling whether one prefers a Lycosaur (old, trusted, fuel thirsty) over a car engine conversion.
If one can and will gather the effort and drive required to get this bird built and flying and certified – the latter perhaps the more demanding part – it might well be an excellent compromise regarding cost of acquisition – cost of operation – performance. The big point being, as always, how one values the effort of building it – if building is not considered at least part of the fun, better to buy an old battered c172 or so.
Could someone who can read Italian well suggest what is special about this aircraft?
The max cruise of 155kt isn’t, so there must be something else.
