I would argue that a Legacy offers much less crashworthiness than any Aerostar – stalls at higher speed, has much less crashworthiness. The insurance costs supports this.
A kitplane is not dangerous, if it’s built thoroughly in compliance with the plans. You can check this when buying the aircraft. My Europa handles very benign, even in a full stall. I feel completely safe in her. That said, a Lanceair isn’t the right plane for a student pilot of course, same goes for an Aerostar.
A kitplane is not dangerous, if it’s built thoroughly in compliance with the plans.
… and the plans depict a good design. There are several very good kitplane designs and there is dangerous crap. The point is that until the design and the specific aircraft has been proven and tested for it’s airworthiness you will have to be a test pilot and be very careful with these flights and perform them in a very careful and professional manner, quite the same during building the aircraft. In an airplane the smallest stringer needs the same attention and care than the main spar or the landing gear. Designing and building an aircraft is a long list of small but important tasks.
Back to topic, I guess I would build a fitting design from scratch. I like the Lanceairs and Glasairs but I don’t fit comfortably. I don’t know if it would be performing as good but I would sit most comfortably :-)
Let’s take an example.
A hypothetical non-certified plane has a published Vs of 56kt. The aileron authority is insufficient to counter the engine torque at Vs.
That would never get certified, which (short wings, small ailerons, etc) is one of a number of reasons why some uncertified planes go fast for a given fuel flow. The bits that stick out are shorter… so less drag.
Whether you think that is good depends on your POV. It would kill almost every pilot who tries to do a low level go-around, unless he/she was briefed accordingly (i.e. Vs is really much higher than 56kt, or you don’t apply max power 
).
But all the powerful warbirds are like that. A Spitfire or a Mustang will kill you if you do that, too.
Provided you have had the training, it is OK. But the end result is that this fictional Vs of 56kt, in reality probably 80kt, translates to a runway performance worse than you expected. So you need to be briefed on that too. A SEP with a Vs of 80kt will not work on a 500m runway.
Peter wrote:
A hypothetical non-certified plane has a published Vs of 56kt. The aileron authority is insufficient to counter the engine torque at Vs.
That would never get certified, which (short wings, small ailerons, etc) is one of a number of reasons why some uncertified planes go fast for a given fuel flow. The bits that stick out are shorter… so less drag
Pretty much the Lancair 4 is like that. It has an engine which produces way too much torque for the mass, which means you don’t have the rudder authority to keep the darn thing straight on the runway if you ram the throttle forward on take off, but need to bring power on gradually and, as some people do, actually point it off center before you go… I talked to the guy who developed the model for microsoft flight sim… he initially could not believe that the real plane would be as dangerous as what came out when he modelled it, until he got to fly and try it. I know this guy, he is easily the best model creator in the industry. This airplane would scare me as an owner, even if I got to understand all it needs to stay alive. No, you can’t certify something like this, and better not. Planes like that are “freakware”, they can be mastered by really dedicated and highly skilled people, but not by your standard GA pilot.
As the saying goes when talking about warbirds, the P-51, Spitfire etc were originally flown by 19 year olds. A friend who bought a Lancair IV flew it for 30 minutes with the previous owner, then flew it home… but he is an unlimited aerobatic pilot who can fly anything. He later trained his somewhat less accomplished partner to fly it, over a longer period, and then they could both fly it without excessive concern. I think it’s just a matter of background and/or training, not that my background or skillset would be of much use in flying a Lancair IV: I was pretty much lost during my 10 minutes of stick time, being unused to the G required to keep the thing within any reasonable land area.
I ran into a young Lancair 360 pilot and his partner yesterday after their arrival at a high altitude field. They had dodged thunderstorms to get there, and one of the things he said was that he doesn’t fly into any runway of less than 3000 ft (about 900 meters) even at lower altitude, which I found interesting. That would’ve limited his alternates if there had been a thunderstorm over the destination, which is maybe why it came up in conversation. Also because I mentioned that my plane is much slower and he was being polite!
As the saying goes when talking about warbirds, the P-51, Spitfire etc were originally flown by 19 year olds.
Age isn’t the factor but experience and training was. The military has a different stance on lost lives during wartime than the general aviation and there were consideraböe non-enemy induced accident rates as a direct result of the handling characteristics. Especially during the later war years in Germany.
mh wrote:
The point is that until the design and the specific aircraft has been proven and tested for it’s airworthiness you will have to be a test pilot and be very careful with these flights and perform them in a very careful and professional manner, quite the same during building the aircraft.
I think the main point is that as a builder, you also have to fly it for 25-50 hours before it will receive a c of a. For those hours, the envelope is gradually widened, and each flight has several hours, days or months sometimes, of preparation up front. Thus, the pilot is also gradually getting to know the aircraft, while being 100% focused on each and every flight, and fully prepared. This is very different from just jumping into the seat (and being killed due to awkward positioned fuel valve for instance, or difficult handling)
However, learning by yourself is not the best way. This article local copy (on Lancairs) was posted in the Lancair 320 thread
1 in 10 chance of crashing your new plane, and 60% chance of death or injury when you do. You need quite a significant appetite for adventure, or have a near-nonexistent attitude to risk. Or find a way to get some training, and preferably with a proper instructor who knows how to train, not with somebody who has just built one and thus far avoided crashing it. Same would apply to any reasonably fast certified type, but at least those have a fairly defined behaviour, with a test flight verified POH.
If there is an experimental which can match the SM SF260D then would be interested. OK the rear seat is for a petite passenger, but otherwise 180 KTAS, mil spec, IFR and +6/-3G.
