Peter wrote:
Like the other kit Lancairs, the owners report dodgy low speed handling, with a basically fictional Vs
The builder is supposed to test all these things and get the correct numbers for the particular plane. Homebuilts are all different. Different weight, different rigging, different drag, some could be slightly warped etc.
If it wasn’t for the permits, and it could fly IFR, I would have got one of these by now. Every time I have a 30-40kt headwind I am thinking about this
Please don’t. Euroga needs you too much 
That one is for sell, 390K€ but no IFR :(
Oops – thanks for the correction. The ES is the 4-seater, the Legacy is the 2-seater.
Cobalt wrote:
The Legacy was the basis for the Columbia 350 / 400
The ES-ESP was the basis for the Columbia.
https://lancair.com/es-esp/
The Legacy was the basis for the Columbia 350 / 400. From what I heard from people who have flown both they are very similar in handling and stall and quite benign (especially compared to the Lancair IV, which has a completely different wing
If it wasn’t for the permits, and it could fly IFR, I would have got one of these by now. Every time I have a 30-40kt headwind I am thinking about this
Like the other kit Lancairs, the owners report dodgy low speed handling, with a basically fictional Vs. So it is a hard runway machine, ~700m plus.
Had a flight, a couple of years ago, in a Lancair Legacy, and was similarly impressed. The Legacy, sporting the same engine, is lighter, and with modern aerodynamics the performance probably benefits.
Cruising 230kts, pretty nice flight controls (much improved on the smaller Lancairs I had a go at), an awesome machine really. I remember “attacking” an innocent looking Arrow (I know, no speed demon) and passing it like it was standing still 
I was even allowed to land, which was, but for the speed itself, a non-event. And yes, braking was required
We have 2 on my field, and they seem ok on our 685m (longest available) runway… we had a 3rd one, which very unfortunately crashed last spring, away from base, whilst circling at low altitude, report pending.
The downside of that kind of ship, besides the budget requirement, is the need for a hard surface of suitable length. And a certain level of professionalism to operate safely.
It’s amazing to realize that I took the flight mentioned in 2013…. Almost nine years ago. Time really does fly. Since then the owners of that Lancair IV have extended the wingtips with a modification of their own design which also adds extra fuel capacity, and installed a completely new 21st century instrument panel.
I saw it taxiing out of Sunday, so although they rarely mention the plane nowadays (they’ve done half a dozen other projects after this one, like the Reno racer Glasair) they’re obviously still using the Lancair as designed.
The former owner of my plane built himself a IV-P (6000 hours!) and I was lucky enough to get a ride in it once and get to handle it. It’s the only piston plane I’ve ever been in (well, except maybe the P51) where you have to actively think about the 250 knot speed limit. It was a delight to fly, no vices at all at least in cruise. The takeoff and landing seemed normal enough to me, he operated out of KPAO with its 2400 feet of runway.
I wouldn’t even begin to compare the Marchetti – I have a handful of flights in that too. That’s a great plane, and one of the few aerobatic tourers, but the performance doesn’t even begin to compare to the IV-P.
